Saddam Hussein 'clearly' had WMD

[senseamp]

GOP, please nominate Fred. Thanks.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Ok, i give up, WTF is Fred?

Are you with Fred?

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This has been discussed ad nauseum. We didnt know it was faulty AT THE TIME. And apperantly you, as usual, forget just as many lefties believed it as righties.

Typical. They're so busy trying to rewrite history and pretend they never voted to pay any attention to the here and now. Hindsight is always 20/20. Anyone who says the USA (and, indeed, the world) isn't better off without Saddam is an idiot.

Is the US a $1,000,0000,000,000.00 better off?:thumbsdown:

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The only unanswered question is what happened to all the WMD prior to the invasion.

PJ -- You and Thompson are both raving looney tunes neocons who will say ANYTHING to perpetuate the LIES created by your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal, and you both need to put down the crack pipe. :roll:

Harvey, I hope we bomb Iran JUST so I can watch your reaction.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Thompson: Saddam Hussein 'clearly' had WMD


HaHaHa... breath... HaHaHa...


I guess ole fred only watchs Fox. Yea lets put him in the WH, I am sure he will do much better then ole George.
Fox news viewers at the bottom of the list. Guess this IS fred only sourse of "news"

What the man actually said "he clearly had had WMD"

 

[jman19]

Yes, it's true. He did have WMD. In fact I believe he acquired some from the US to use against Iran. Talk about short sighted :roll:

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

QFT. What this shows is that the liberals are getting very scared of Fred Thompson. And for good reason. His numbers are rising.

No More Mr. Nice Guy

I saw Fred in CF last night and he was fantastic.

So I see you support invasion of a country and being mired for years, possibly decades, based on knowing that the nation might have had WMD, at some point in time, somewhere?

Critical thinking at its finest.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Pabster-

Typical. They're so busy trying to rewrite history and pretend they never voted to pay any attention to the here and now. Hindsight is always 20/20. Anyone who says the USA (and, indeed, the world) isn't better off without Saddam is an idiot.

Tell it to the millions of Iraqis turned into refugees, the families of the 70K dead iraqis, and the hundreds of thousands who've been maimed and wounded... They *may* have opinions to the contrary...

Radical Islamists of all stripes love it, however, now that they have lots of targets and a suitable lack of law and order in Iraq...

Having reduced Iraq to the kind of savagery that would have made saddam blanche, the claim of the world being better off for our actions rings more than a little bit hollow... I rate it as delusional raving...

 

[First]

Originally posted by: jman19
Yes, it's true. He did have WMD. In fact I believe he acquired some from the US to use against Iran. Talk about short sighted :roll:

A lot people will only see what they want to see. The administration itself has given up on justifying Iraq with the WMD excuse. You'd think that would be enough of a hint WRT WMDs to the true-believing neocons here.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Fred stills believes the worlds flat.

It's not?

They've convinced me it's flat.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The only unanswered question is what happened to all the WMD prior to the invasion.

PJ -- You and Thompson are both raving looney tunes neocons who will say ANYTHING to perpetuate the LIES created by your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal, and you both need to put down the crack pipe. :roll:

Great personal attack! :thumbsup:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The only unanswered question is what happened to all the WMD prior to the invasion.

PJ -- You and Thompson are both raving looney tunes neocons who will say ANYTHING to perpetuate the LIES created by your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal, and you both need to put down the crack pipe. :roll:

Great personal attack! :thumbsup:

You didnt expect honest exchange of ideas, seeing someone else's POV, and non partisanship in P&N did you? Silly man. Thats not the definiation of P&N. We dont really discuss anything important for more than 2 or 3 posts hehe

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The only unanswered question is what happened to all the WMD prior to the invasion.

PJ -- You and Thompson are both raving looney tunes neocons who will say ANYTHING to perpetuate the LIES created by your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal, and you both need to put down the crack pipe. :roll:

Harvey, I hope we bomb Iran JUST so I can watch your reaction.

You are wishing the death of people in the magnitude of an unknown number to watch someones reaction for your own amusement.

This does not surprise me in the least.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The only unanswered question is what happened to all the WMD prior to the invasion.

PJ -- You and Thompson are both raving looney tunes neocons who will say ANYTHING to perpetuate the LIES created by your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal, and you both need to put down the crack pipe. :roll:

Great personal attack! :thumbsup:

At least he didn't advocate war for his personal amusement like others have.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The only unanswered question is what happened to all the WMD prior to the invasion.

PJ -- You and Thompson are both raving looney tunes neocons who will say ANYTHING to perpetuate the LIES created by your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal, and you both need to put down the crack pipe. :roll:

Harvey, I hope we bomb Iran JUST so I can watch your reaction.

You are wishing the death of people in the magnitude of an unknown number to watch someones reaction for your own amusement.

This does not surprise me in the least.

Well what I really want to know, how are we going to feel after we order bombing in Iran, we lose some planes, and then our pilots get to be put on TV for a show trial straight to execution. Sounds like the plot of Iron Eagle, and Louis Gossit Jr. is retired, so we're fucked.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The only unanswered question is what happened to all the WMD prior to the invasion.

PJ -- You and Thompson are both raving looney tunes neocons who will say ANYTHING to perpetuate the LIES created by your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal, and you both need to put down the crack pipe. :roll:

Harvey, I hope we bomb Iran JUST so I can watch your reaction.

Thanks, PJ. If you're hoping we bomb Iran, and that's the best motive you can come up with for doing so, I hope you're watching it up close and personally from Tehran. I'll look forward to your post from there.

And yes, before you puke out more of your garbage, that's sarcasm. And yes, like all of your other irrational, sycophantic neocon posts, you, your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his entire criminal cabal are all full of sh8.

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Great personal attack! :thumbsup:

:lips: my (_|_).

 

[Lemon law]

There has been a lot of discussion on other threads about the religious right who has yet to make up its mind about who to support. But what is not addressed and is the thread subject is who will the neocons pin their hopes on and support. And a few things should be said. (1) While the neocons pulled off a somewhat brilliant sales campaign selling the idea that Saddam had WMD and was an immediate threat in 2002, its a dead issue now. More myth than substance, but its still a old reliable drum beat myth that gets certain hard core voters standing up and re saluting while the majority mostly yawns and another minority screams bullshit. But its still a net profit myth that still pays off more than it loses so look for a steady parade of neocon spokesmen to say with a straight face that Saddam had WMD. And then run away from any who question and say prove it. (2) Neocons can muster few votes but can raise a lot of corporate cash. And the neocon agenda requires having a neocon advocate President to win the election of 11/08 or the neocons are cooked for at least four years. (3) To be effective, the neocon PNAC types will have to both join with the Religious Right and continue to be the braintrust of the GOP. And to further leverage that they have to raise money for the candidate of their choice while limiting the other candidates from raising corporate cash. So far, I see almost no evidence the neocons have made that choice on who they will support. (4) rather than per say talk about who the neocons might choose, it might be more effective to talk about who they are unlikely to choose. So my own in my opinion list on who would be unacceptable to neocons.

1. Ron Paul as an small government type who does not believe in foreign adventures.

2. Rudy Giuliani. Acceptable to neocons but a loser for the religious right type votes they need.

3. John McCain. Partly acceptable to neocons but with a stubborn think for himself pragmatism that may not make him a sufficiently reliable tool.

4. Mitt Romney might fill the bill, but given his plastic past positions, I think neocons would have to wonder about how long he would risk a loss of popular support when their agenda does not bear the immediate fruit of a victory. They need a hang the course type like GWB if they get into another Iraq type quagmire not to mention the one we have now.

Which kinda narrows the field to Thompson and Huckabee is the way I view it. With all democrats other than possibly Hillary unacceptable. Sad to say, I think Hillary might buy such a neocon deal if she thought it could win her the election. And with the help of Limbaugh and friends, she might suddenly gain the religion needed to bring the religious right along.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And with the help of Limbaugh and friends, she might suddenly gain the religion needed to bring the religious right along.

How would Limbaugh help Hillary get elected?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The only unanswered question is what happened to all the WMD prior to the invasion.

PJ -- You and Thompson are both raving looney tunes neocons who will say ANYTHING to perpetuate the LIES created by your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal, and you both need to put down the crack pipe. :roll:

Harvey, I hope we bomb Iran JUST so I can watch your reaction.

Thanks, PJ. If you're hoping we bomb Iran, and that's the best motive you can come up with for doing so, I hope you're watching it up close and personally from Tehran. I'll look forward to your post from there.

And yes, before you puke out more of your garbage, that's sarcasm. And yes, like all of your other irrational, sycophantic neocon posts, you, your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his entire criminal cabal are all full of sh8.

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Great personal attack! :thumbsup:

:lips: my (_|_).

Oh that is so Sig worthy :thumbsup:

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The only unanswered question is what happened to all the WMD prior to the invasion.

PJ -- You and Thompson are both raving looney tunes neocons who will say ANYTHING to perpetuate the LIES created by your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal, and you both need to put down the crack pipe. :roll:

Harvey, I hope we bomb Iran JUST so I can watch your reaction.

Thanks, PJ. If you're hoping we bomb Iran, and that's the best motive you can come up with for doing so, I hope you're watching it up close and personally from Tehran. I'll look forward to your post from there.

And yes, before you puke out more of your garbage, that's sarcasm. And yes, like all of your other irrational, sycophantic neocon posts, you, your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his entire criminal cabal are all full of sh8.

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Great personal attack! :thumbsup:

:lips: my (_|_).

sheight?

 

[Starbuck1975]

A lot people will only see what they want to see. The administration itself has given up on justifying Iraq with the WMD excuse. You'd think that would be enough of a hint WRT WMDs to the true-believing neocons here.

It is quite simple really...it is no secret that Saddam Hussein had a fairly robust WMD program at some point...it is also no secret that Saddam Hussein had aspirations for transforming Iraq into a regional, and perhaps global power, by obtaining nuclear capabilities...not unlike the aspirations of many contemporary meglomaniacs and dictators.

Anything beyond that is speculation, to include:

1. Did the UN inspections of the 90s effectively restrict Saddam's WMD program.

2. Could the UN effectively monitor Saddam indefinitely.

The Bush Administration provided WMDs as the justification for invading Iraq, and most accept that Bush exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam to secure public support for said invasion.

But Thompson did not say anything factually incorrect in his statement...hell, there are plenty of sound bytes from the Clinton Administration asserting that Saddam was a threat...many politicians engage in sabre rattling to motivate voters, and Thompson probably realizes that his campaign's only hope is to rally the remnants of the NeoCon base, many of whom still believe that Saddam was a threat worthy of immediate removal.

The point of debate remains the timing, justification and sense of urgency for invading Iraq, and our handling of that invasion since taking Bagdad.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975


The point of debate remains the timing, justification and sense of urgency for invading Iraq, and our handling of that invasion since taking Bagdad.

Such narrow grounds for debate :Q

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
But Thompson did not say anything factually incorrect in his statement...hell, there are plenty of sound bytes from the Clinton Administration asserting that Saddam was a threat...many politicians engage in sabre rattling to motivate voters, and Thompson probably realizes that his campaign's only hope is to rally the remnants of the NeoCon base, many of whom still believe that Saddam was a threat worthy of immediate removal.

But the TRAITOR IN CHIEF is the only politician who actually launched an actual war Iraq. He was the one politician who had the consumate responsibility to be absolutely right and to tell the truth to the American people about why he was sending their citizens to bleed and die for what he believed.

He failed dismally at both. As of 10/2/07 7:15 pm EDT, 3,808 American troops are dead, tens of thousands more are wounded, scarred and disabled for life because the Bushwhackos LIED.

They lied, and they silenced mountains of evidence they had before they started their illegal war that every lame excuse they offered for starting it was a lie. George W. Bush and his criminal cabal should be tried for murder for every American death in their WAR OF LIES in Iraq.

 

[Jhhnn]

Fred obviously supports the whole concept of pre emptive war, and the deceptive justifications that are always necessary to engage in such... Basically, he offers that the invasion was justified because his crystal ball tells him so... as did the Bushies when they led us into the current imbroglio...

Insanity is doing the same things over and over again, expecting different results...

Fred's just another version of Bush- more polished, just as crazy...

 

[Jamie571]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And with the help of Limbaugh and friends, she might suddenly gain the religion needed to bring the religious right along.

How would Limbaugh help Hillary get elected?

Limbaugh totally ripped her apart today. And at the same time Fred posted on his website supporting Limbaugh relating to the "phoney soldier" comments.

You can bash Limbaugh all you want, but hes on the radio day after day dismantling everything the Democrats do. And no I'm not saying I believe everything he says.

I think the dems have a lot to fear from Fred, especialy in the debates.