You're forced to admit Bush was right. Here are your options.

[Wolfstrike]

Moroccan Immigrant Charged in Attempted Bombing of U.S. Capitol - Businessweek

THIS POST IS NOT SARCASTIC.

Feb. 19 (Bloomberg) -- A Moroccan immigrant was charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction in a suicide bombing at the U.S. Capitol

it turns out we were wrong about the government's definition of "Weapons of mass destruction"

this Muslim had guns and a bomb suicide vest and has been charged by the government for possessing "Weapons of mass destruction"

anyone walking around saying Bush lied about Iraq having "Weapons of mass destruction" can no longer do so as surely the Iraqi government had firearms and small bombs.



here are your options.

A) You vote for Obama and support exaggerated claims when charging people of crimes in domestic cases.

B) You vote for the Republicans and agree with invading countries because they have firearms and small bombs.

C) You vote for Ron Paul and support a more Constitutional approach to personal liberties and a reluctance o invade foreign nations.



...those are your choices

 

[jodylee]

If he runs for a third party I think he'll have a better chance, its about time Americans started voting for a party other than the two main one's, and prove you have a healthy democracy.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

If he runs for a third party I think he'll have a better chance, its about time Americans started voting for a party other than the two main one's, and prove you have a healthy democracy.

The headline of this topic had me thinking about third party candidates, too, and the pros and cons of personally having political ideals that don't fall into either major political camp. Primary advantage? When I argue with people they can't point at the points of view of popular politicians from one party or the other and imply that, because that's my party, somehow my contradiction of those viewpoints is grounds for dismissal of my point. Small pro, though, when the con is that I rarely find suitable candidates to vote for at any level of my voters ballot

 

[Article 15]

D) I will vote for Obama, hold the opinion that equating firearms and small bombs to "WMD" is retarded, and consider the idea that this charge vindicates Bush's Iraq folly as even more retarded than the charge itself.

 

[Peach]

D) I will vote for Obama, hold the opinion that equating firearms and small bombs to "WMD" is retarded, and consider the idea that this charge vindicates Bush's Iraq folly as even more retarded than the charge itself.

As Bush claimed the WMD's were in Iraq, how is he "right"? Morocco is a notable distance from Iraq.

 

[Sallow]

Here's the fun part. Saudi Arabia really did have something to do with 9/11.

And they own part of FOX.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Moroccan Immigrant Charged in Attempted Bombing of U.S. Capitol - Businessweek

THIS POST IS NOT SARCASTIC.

Feb. 19 (Bloomberg) -- A Moroccan immigrant was charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction in a suicide bombing at the U.S. Capitol

it turns out we were wrong about the government's definition of "Weapons of mass destruction"

this Muslim had guns and a bomb suicide vest and has been charged by the government for possessing "Weapons of mass destruction"

anyone walking around saying Bush lied about Iraq having "Weapons of mass destruction" can no longer do so as surely the Iraqi government had firearms and small bombs.



here are your options.

A) You vote for Obama and support exaggerated claims when charging people of crimes in domestic cases.

B) You vote for the Republicans and agree with invading countries because they have firearms and small bombs.

C) You vote for Ron Paul and support a more Constitutional approach to personal liberties and a reluctance o invade foreign nations.



...those are your choices

Maybe if Ron Paul were actually running for president, as opposed to pretending to run for president by entering the GOP primaries where he knows he can't win,

your thread might be relevant.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Aww...you guys are gonna make them cry.

 

[Peach]

Here's the fun part. Saudi Arabia really did have something to do with 9/11.

And they own part of FOX.

As 17 of the 19 monsters were SAUDI, and it was SAUDI financed, that is a fair conclusion. Bush slobbering over their King was a disgrace. His decision to ease off the 9/11 fight to invade Iraq must have been to spare his most favored nation embarrassment.

 

[Truthmatters]

If an completely fair and untampered election is held the ideas of Ron Paul will not be voted for in large enough numbers fro him to secure the election.

Ron Paul and his ideas are NOT what the American peopel want.

You like them and that is fine.

He can not win an American election if the people are allowed their will.

 

[Sallow]

Here's the fun part. Saudi Arabia really did have something to do with 9/11.

And they own part of FOX.

As 17 of the 19 monsters were SAUDI, and it was SAUDI financed, that is a fair conclusion. Bush slobbering over their King was a disgrace. His decision to ease off the 9/11 fight to invade Iraq must have been to spare his most favored nation embarrassment.

Naw.

Here's the kicker. The Saudis wanted the US to attack Iraq. They got their wish. Mission Accomplished.

Next up? Iran.

 

[healthmyths]

D) I will vote for Obama, hold the opinion that equating firearms and small bombs to "WMD" is retarded, and consider the idea that this charge vindicates Bush's Iraq folly as even more retarded than the charge itself.

As Bush claimed the WMD's were in Iraq, how is he "right"? Morocco is a notable distance from Iraq.

Just a reminder folks...

BEFORE BUSH ... When CLINTON was President...
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger- Clinton National. Security. Advisor 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its [B]WMD[/B] programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999

"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs.threat our security".Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002

 

[Article 15]

D) I will vote for Obama, hold the opinion that equating firearms and small bombs to "WMD" is retarded, and consider the idea that this charge vindicates Bush's Iraq folly as even more retarded than the charge itself.

As Bush claimed the WMD's were in Iraq, how is he "right"? Morocco is a notable distance from Iraq.

Just a reminder folks...

BEFORE BUSH ... When CLINTON was President...
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger- Clinton National. Security. Advisor 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its [B]WMD[/B] programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999

"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs.threat our security".Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002

That's nice. And when push came to shove a majority of Dems in the Congress voted against AUMF Iraq. Her vote for the war cost Hillary the nomination in 2008. So there's that.

 

[squinch]

THIS POST IS NOT SARCASTIC.

Feb. 19 (Bloomberg) -- A Moroccan immigrant was charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction in a suicide bombing at the U.S. Capitol

it turns out we were wrong about the government's definition of "Weapons of mass destruction"

this Muslim had guns and a bomb suicide vest and has been charged by the government for possessing "Weapons of mass destruction"

anyone walking around saying Bush lied about Iraq having "Weapons of mass destruction" can no longer do so as surely the Iraqi government had firearms and small bombs.



here are your options.

A) You vote for Obama and support exaggerated claims when charging people of crimes in domestic cases.

B) You vote for the Republicans and agree with invading countries because they have firearms and small bombs.

C) You vote for Ron Paul and support a more Constitutional approach to personal liberties and a reluctance o invade foreign nations.



...those are your choices[/QUOTE]

I don't think that's what Bush had in mind when he talked of Sadam's WMD.
I'm probably gonna vote for Obama because he's making some headway in cleaning up the mess he inherited with little help from the opposition party who created the mess.
I'm probably not going to vote for Ron Paul. He's had plenty of time to make his case and he can't even get his own party on board.

 

[Article 15]

I don't think that's what Bush had in mind when he talked of Sadam's WMD.

The hell you say!

 

[skookerasbil]

A time will come in the near future from somebody like Ron Paul, but only after the masses come to the realization that the entitlement society is not sustainable. When the civil unrest comes to most towns in America, people will put down their iPhones and start paying attention. The 100+ year march of the progressives will be ended.

 

[NYcarbineer]

D) I will vote for Obama, hold the opinion that equating firearms and small bombs to "WMD" is retarded, and consider the idea that this charge vindicates Bush's Iraq folly as even more retarded than the charge itself.

As Bush claimed the WMD's were in Iraq, how is he "right"? Morocco is a notable distance from Iraq.

Just a reminder folks...

BEFORE BUSH ... When CLINTON was President...
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger- Clinton National. Security. Advisor 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its [B]WMD[/B] programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999

"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs.threat our security".Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002

The fact that you don't see Barack Obama's name in the above list is the main reason he's president today.

 

[Truthmatters]

Ron Pauls ideas are not going to save the world or this country.

The American people already know that.

 

[J.E.D]

Moroccan Immigrant Charged in Attempted Bombing of U.S. Capitol - Businessweek

THIS POST IS NOT SARCASTIC.

Feb. 19 (Bloomberg) -- A Moroccan immigrant was charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction in a suicide bombing at the U.S. Capitol

it turns out we were wrong about the government's definition of "Weapons of mass destruction"

this Muslim had guns and a bomb suicide vest and has been charged by the government for possessing "Weapons of mass destruction"

anyone walking around saying Bush lied about Iraq having "Weapons of mass destruction" can no longer do so as surely the Iraqi government had firearms and small bombs.



here are your options.

A) You vote for Obama and support exaggerated claims when charging people of crimes in domestic cases.

B) You vote for the Republicans and agree with invading countries because they have firearms and small bombs.

C) You vote for Ron Paul and support a more Constitutional approach to personal liberties and a reluctance o invade foreign nations.



...those are your choices

I choose to call your post hackery in the first degree.

 

[DaGoose]

Moroccan Immigrant Charged in Attempted Bombing of U.S. Capitol - Businessweek

THIS POST IS NOT SARCASTIC.

Feb. 19 (Bloomberg) -- A Moroccan immigrant was charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction in a suicide bombing at the U.S. Capitol

it turns out we were wrong about the government's definition of "Weapons of mass destruction"

this Muslim had guns and a bomb suicide vest and has been charged by the government for possessing "Weapons of mass destruction"

anyone walking around saying Bush lied about Iraq having "Weapons of mass destruction" can no longer do so as surely the Iraqi government had firearms and small bombs.



here are your options.

A) You vote for Obama and support exaggerated claims when charging people of crimes in domestic cases.

B) You vote for the Republicans and agree with invading countries because they have firearms and small bombs.

C) You vote for Ron Paul and support a more Constitutional approach to personal liberties and a reluctance o invade foreign nations.



...those are your choices

The next time someone accuses me of blaming Bush for everything I will point them to this thread and accuse them of saying that Bush was right about everything.