I don't know anyone that believed that Saddam had anything to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. Could you provide a quote from anyone in the Bush administration that claimed he did?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I don't know anyone that believed that Saddam had anything to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. Could you provide a quote from anyone in the Bush administration that claimed he did?
they need to run dusce limbaugh out of public eye anyway. not just for this but for opening his mouth from day one.
like Al never opens his big mouth....give us a break....
You are talking about Al Sharpton, the biggest racist in America, aren't you?
the one and only....
noose4
Senior Member
Wow, my memory must be going, could you point to the instance where President Bush blatantly lied to a Grand Jury? Also, are you saying that Clinton was on trial for 8 years and it cost 40 million dollars..... 8 years???? Are you sure on the number? Depending on what leftist hack you talk to, that number goes all the way to 70 million. Why don't you just say a billion, with this new administration, anything short of that isn't even noticed by anyone anymore.
What lie?
Bush lied to a country. The majority of Americans (and I mean the majority) believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. The hijackers were from Arabia. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. Bin Laden had tried to put together a coalition to drive Saddam OUT of Kuwait. They enemies.
Yet, some how, Americans came to the conclusion that Saddam was behind 9/11. Where on earth did the US get this idea? And, Bin Laden was insulted that somehow Americans got this idea that he had help from Saddam. Go ahead and think it through. Where did America get this idea? Since 15 of the 16 hijackers were from Arabia, wouldn't it make sense that the US would believe the attack might have come from Arabia. But no. Out of the blue, without a shred of evidence, Americans believed it was Saddam. How is that possible. Try now. Think it through.
Republicans spent 40 million on prosecutors and investigations against the Clinton's.
Let me explain something. Republican party members have the weird idea that the Clinton's were just grubbing for money. Since Bill Clinton left office, he has made more than a hundred and nine million dollars in speaking fees and books. He always knew he would make this money. All presidents do.
Bush is speaking as a "motivational speaker" for a hundred thousand dollars for 40 minutes. All the Republican accusations of money grubbing against the Clinton's was peanuts. It was party line. Party leaders knew it. It's the base that's stupid. People on this board have written that Clinton was convicted of a felony and that's why he was impeached. How dumb.
I don't know anyone that believed that Saddam had anything to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. Could you provide a quote from anyone in the Bush administration that claimed he did?
an interesting article regarding this subject:
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq | csmonitor.com
mdn2000
Rookie
- Banned
- #64
You can't accuse someone of the crime unless they actually committed it. If they are found "not guilty", it's much easier to win a civil suit. However, OJ was aquitted, but still had to pay everything in the civil suit. Innocent in one doesn't mean automaticly innocent in the other.
How would anyone be able to accuse anyone of a crime then? People are accused of crimes all the time, then in the court of law are found guilty or innocent, but it was never a crime to accuse someone. Meanwhile, outside of the court of law, private citizens are free to express their own opinion about people's guilt or innocence.
Rush was just giving his opinion that Sharpton helped incite the riot.
Liberals for 8 years have been accusing Bush of commiting crimes he never commited, I don't see you saying all those libs should be held accountable.
This is nothing more than another liberal attempt to squash free speech of conservatives.
Conservatives went after Clinton for 8 years spending more than 40 million in taxpayer money and only came up with Monica.
Democrats did NOT go after Bush the same way because the US is/was fighting wars on two fronts. Democrats rallied around the President making him the most popular president in US history. That is an undeniable FACT!
But if they had gone after Bush, you have to admit, there is an awful lot of material to work with.
I get the impression that most Republicans are not completely against assassination as an option.
Are you a liar or an ignorant fool, or are simply to young to know what truth is or are simply lazy.
The Starr investigation, which was conducted under the authority of Clinton appointee Janet Reno resulted in the Governor of Arkansas being convicted.
How about the Convictions of Bill Clinton's personal freind, another crime that means nothing to liberals.
How about Clinton's other freind that went to jail for contempt for refusing to testify.
Crime, felonies, these convictions you either know nothing of or you ignore.
Rdean, are you ignorant or a liar?
- Aug 4, 2009
- 281,469
- 143,352
- 2,615
How would anyone be able to accuse anyone of a crime then? People are accused of crimes all the time, then in the court of law are found guilty or innocent, but it was never a crime to accuse someone. Meanwhile, outside of the court of law, private citizens are free to express their own opinion about people's guilt or innocence.
Rush was just giving his opinion that Sharpton helped incite the riot.
Liberals for 8 years have been accusing Bush of commiting crimes he never commited, I don't see you saying all those libs should be held accountable.
This is nothing more than another liberal attempt to squash free speech of conservatives.
Conservatives went after Clinton for 8 years spending more than 40 million in taxpayer money and only came up with Monica.
Democrats did NOT go after Bush the same way because the US is/was fighting wars on two fronts. Democrats rallied around the President making him the most popular president in US history. That is an undeniable FACT!
But if they had gone after Bush, you have to admit, there is an awful lot of material to work with.
I get the impression that most Republicans are not completely against assassination as an option.
Are you a liar or an ignorant fool, or are simply to young to know what truth is or are simply lazy.
The Starr investigation, which was conducted under the authority of Clinton appointee Janet Reno resulted in the Governor of Arkansas being convicted.
How about the Convictions of Bill Clinton's personal freind, another crime that means nothing to liberals.
How about Clinton's other freind that went to jail for contempt for refusing to testify.
Crime, felonies, these convictions you either know nothing of or you ignore.
Rdean, are you ignorant or a liar?
$40 Million and tying up the government for eight years and they got nothing.
Shows what happens when you put republicans in charge. Thats why they have been driven from power
mdn2000
Rookie
- Banned
- #66
How would anyone be able to accuse anyone of a crime then? People are accused of crimes all the time, then in the court of law are found guilty or innocent, but it was never a crime to accuse someone. Meanwhile, outside of the court of law, private citizens are free to express their own opinion about people's guilt or innocence.
Rush was just giving his opinion that Sharpton helped incite the riot.
Liberals for 8 years have been accusing Bush of commiting crimes he never commited, I don't see you saying all those libs should be held accountable.
This is nothing more than another liberal attempt to squash free speech of conservatives.
Conservatives went after Clinton for 8 years spending more than 40 million in taxpayer money and only came up with Monica.
Democrats did NOT go after Bush the same way because the US is/was fighting wars on two fronts. Democrats rallied around the President making him the most popular president in US history. That is an undeniable FACT!
But if they had gone after Bush, you have to admit, there is an awful lot of material to work with.
I get the impression that most Republicans are not completely against assassination as an option.
Are you a liar or an ignorant fool, or are simply to young to know what truth is or are you simply lazy.
The Starr investigation, which was conducted under the authority of Clinton appointee Janet Reno resulted in the Governor of Arkansas being convicted.
How about the Convictions of Bill Clinton's personal freind, another crime that means nothing to liberals.
How about Clinton's other freind that went to jail for contempt for refusing to testify.
Crime, felonies, these convictions you either know nothing of or you ignore.
Rdean, are you ignorant or a liar?
R
rdean
Guest
- Thread starter
- #67
Conservatives went after Clinton for 8 years spending more than 40 million in taxpayer money and only came up with Monica.
Democrats did NOT go after Bush the same way because the US is/was fighting wars on two fronts. Democrats rallied around the President making him the most popular president in US history. That is an undeniable FACT!
But if they had gone after Bush, you have to admit, there is an awful lot of material to work with.
I get the impression that most Republicans are not completely against assassination as an option.
Are you a liar or an ignorant fool, or are simply to young to know what truth is or are you simply lazy.
The Starr investigation, which was conducted under the authority of Clinton appointee Janet Reno resulted in the Governor of Arkansas being convicted.
How about the Convictions of Bill Clinton's personal freind, another crime that means nothing to liberals.
How about Clinton's other freind that went to jail for contempt for refusing to testify.
Crime, felonies, these convictions you either know nothing of or you ignore.
Rdean, are you ignorant or a liar?
When politics is involved, all kinds of mud is thrown at the walls just to see what sticks.
Bill Ayers, according to the right, is "close friends" with Obama. Even though they served on "different" boards of a "very right wing" organization. Obama visited Ayers house for a fundraiser, and visited at least twenty other houses that same day. Yet, according to the right, "they are very, very close friends".
The bottom line. The Clintons were convicted of being hated by the Republicans and nothing else. Bill Clinton has made one hundred and nine million dollars. You can bet he didn't go after peanuts.
No matter how much logic and data you throw at Republicans, if their mind is made up? it's made up.
mdn2000
Rookie
- Banned
- #68
Rdean, so you choose to be a liar. Bill Ayers, Obama did more than visit his house, Obama reviewed Ayer's book and in the review he praised the book. Obama did more than visit Ayers house, he moved next door, Obama did more than visit Ayer's house, Obama accepted the invitation to launch his political career in Ayer's house. Ayer's is a Marxist. Obama did more than visit Ayer's house and live next door, Obama took a job and the same University as Ayer's.
Ayers and Obama also served on the same board of a foundation, according to Bill Ayers.
Bill Ayers calls Obama a personal family friend
Rdean, you choose to lie
Rdean are you a Marxist?
Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury, pleaded guilty, a very serious crime when committed by the most powerful man in the world.
Ayers and Obama also served on the same board of a foundation, according to Bill Ayers.
Bill Ayers calls Obama a personal family friend
Rdean, you choose to lie
Rdean are you a Marxist?
Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury, pleaded guilty, a very serious crime when committed by the most powerful man in the world.
Last edited:
did you read that story?What lie?
Bush lied to a country. The majority of Americans (and I mean the majority) believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. The hijackers were from Arabia. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. Bin Laden had tried to put together a coalition to drive Saddam OUT of Kuwait. They enemies.
Yet, some how, Americans came to the conclusion that Saddam was behind 9/11. Where on earth did the US get this idea? And, Bin Laden was insulted that somehow Americans got this idea that he had help from Saddam. Go ahead and think it through. Where did America get this idea? Since 15 of the 16 hijackers were from Arabia, wouldn't it make sense that the US would believe the attack might have come from Arabia. But no. Out of the blue, without a shred of evidence, Americans believed it was Saddam. How is that possible. Try now. Think it through.
Republicans spent 40 million on prosecutors and investigations against the Clinton's.
Let me explain something. Republican party members have the weird idea that the Clinton's were just grubbing for money. Since Bill Clinton left office, he has made more than a hundred and nine million dollars in speaking fees and books. He always knew he would make this money. All presidents do.
Bush is speaking as a "motivational speaker" for a hundred thousand dollars for 40 minutes. All the Republican accusations of money grubbing against the Clinton's was peanuts. It was party line. Party leaders knew it. It's the base that's stupid. People on this board have written that Clinton was convicted of a felony and that's why he was impeached. How dumb.
I don't know anyone that believed that Saddam had anything to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. Could you provide a quote from anyone in the Bush administration that claimed he did?
an interesting article regarding this subject:
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq | csmonitor.com
noose4
Senior Member
did you read that story?I don't know anyone that believed that Saddam had anything to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. Could you provide a quote from anyone in the Bush administration that claimed he did?
an interesting article regarding this subject:
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq | csmonitor.com
yes that is why i posted it.
Unless Mr. Limbaugh apologizes and clarifies his statements, attorneys for Rev. Sharpton will move forward with a lawsuit. He has the right to criticize Rev. Sharpton, but he does not have the right to accuse him of criminal activity, and riots and murders are criminal.
Al Sharpton Threatens To Sue Rush Limbaugh | HipHopWired.com
This isn't the first time Al has made a Republican crawl and beg for forgiveness. If no apology, Al will proceed by the end of the week.
Who will blink first?
Rush should just literally hire Mark Levin to represent him. The "Rev." Al will then drop it. But if he isn't that smart and does actually then try to file a lawsuit, great. I'd love to be part of the Levin team when it comes to discovery! Al NONEtooSharpton will wish he had never tried to abuse the legal system -- again.
There's not a reason (not a valid one anyway) on EARTH why Rush should "blink."
It's an interesting story noose. Several paragraphs of conjecture without one single solitary link by a high ranking person in the Bush Administration ever having claimed that Saddam knew a damn thing about 9/11 before it happened. The most anyone ever said was that it was believed that Saddam and Al qeada were holding talks no one ever said what about and to this day no one not at one of those meeting and perhaps Osama knows what was discussed. The whole notion started with and NYT article which the Bush administration promptly repudiated.
Holding talks does not mean they were sharing information on each others operations. The fact is that the talks were very likely little more than an opening gambit to try and see if they couldn't figure out a way to combine against their common foe - us.
Holding talks does not mean they were sharing information on each others operations. The fact is that the talks were very likely little more than an opening gambit to try and see if they couldn't figure out a way to combine against their common foe - us.
Conservatives went after Clinton for 8 years spending more than 40 million in taxpayer money and only came up with Monica.
Democrats did NOT go after Bush the same way because the US is/was fighting wars on two fronts. Democrats rallied around the President making him the most popular president in US history. That is an undeniable FACT!
But if they had gone after Bush, you have to admit, there is an awful lot of material to work with.
I get the impression that most Republicans are not completely against assassination as an option.
Are you a liar or an ignorant fool, or are simply to young to know what truth is or are simply lazy.
The Starr investigation, which was conducted under the authority of Clinton appointee Janet Reno resulted in the Governor of Arkansas being convicted.
How about the Convictions of Bill Clinton's personal freind, another crime that means nothing to liberals.
How about Clinton's other freind that went to jail for contempt for refusing to testify.
Crime, felonies, these convictions you either know nothing of or you ignore.
Rdean, are you ignorant or a liar?
$40 Million and tying up the government for eight years and they got nothing.
Shows what happens when you put republicans in charge. Thats why they have been driven from power
i would watch what your saying RW....if things keep going the way they are going....the Dems may be joining the Repubs in the land of the lost......
No matter how much logic and data you throw at Republicans, if their mind is made up? it's made up.
its the same way with a GREAT bunch of Democrats Dean......no difference....
hEY lIABILITY , LUSH SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN JAIL YEARS AGO FOR TRAFFICKING, 10,000 PILLS WITH NO PERCRIPTION IS A LITTLE MORE THAN AN ADDICTION, HAD HE BEEN BLACK HIS WHITE ASS WOULD HAVE NEVER SEEN THE LIGHT OF DAY AGAIN, JUST LIKE HE SAID ON HIS SHOW IN 94, SEND THEM DOWN THE RIVER , WHAT DO YA THINK A$$WIPE
Last edited:
it disproved your premise in the second paragraphdid you read that story?an interesting article regarding this subject:
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq | csmonitor.com
yes that is why i posted it.
noose4
Senior Member
it disproved your premise in the second paragraphdid you read that story?
yes that is why i posted it.
and what was my premise?
So far Rush hasn't mentioned it. I would imagine that Rush will push back very hard and spend whatever it takes to wipe up the floor with Sharpton.Unless Mr. Limbaugh apologizes and clarifies his statements, attorneys for Rev. Sharpton will move forward with a lawsuit. He has the right to criticize Rev. Sharpton, but he does not have the right to accuse him of criminal activity, and riots and murders are criminal.
Al Sharpton Threatens To Sue Rush Limbaugh | HipHopWired.com
This isn't the first time Al has made a Republican crawl and beg for forgiveness. If no apology, Al will proceed by the end of the week.
Who will blink first?
R
rdean
Guest
- Thread starter
- #79
So far, I haven't heard a peep from either Rush or Al. Did they both blink?
hEY lIABILITY , LUSH SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN JAIL YEARS AGO FOR TRAFFICKING, 10,000 PILLS WITH NO PERCRIPTION IS A LITTLE MORE THAN AN ADDICTION, HAD HE BEEN BLACK HIS WHITE ASS WOULD HAVE NEVER SEEN THE LIGHT OF DAY AGAIN, JUST LIKE HE SAID ON HIS SHOW IN 94, SEND THEM DOWN THE RIVER , WHAT DO YA THINK A$$WIPE
Hey potterassmunch:
I don't give a rat's cancerous anus about your meaningless opinion regarding Rush's drug problems of the past. What the fuck does that have to do with anything being discussed here, you fucking shitforbrains retard?
And it's not that difficult to take off the capslock you fucking moron. Get a grown-up to help you out, turdbrain.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 132
- Views
- 16K
- Replies
- 420
- Views
- 21K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 41
- Views
- 242
- Replies
- 430
- Views
- 5K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8088
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-