George H W Bush october 19 1980, where was he?

[martybegan]

No it has not.

It can be "exploded" by releasing the docyuments that "prove" he wasnt in Paris.

Gee why wont they release them then????????

Actually the burden is on you to prove that he WAS there, not the other way around.

Making someone prove a negative is one of the classic argument tactics of wack-job conspiracy theorists.

 

[bripat9643]

THey NEED to release these documents if he is innocent they will prove his innocence

He was proven innocent years ago, dipstick. Secret Service records establish his position at every moment of the 1980 campaign, and he was never in Paris where he supposedly made a deal with the Ayatollah.

Anyone who believes this nonsense is unmasking himself as a moron.

 

[bripat9643]

No it has not.

It can be "exploded" by releasing the docyuments that "prove" he wasnt in Paris.

Gee why wont they release them then????????

Actually the burden is on you to prove that he WAS there, not the other way around.

Making someone prove a negative is one of the classic argument tactics of wack-job conspiracy theorists.

It has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the George Bush could never have met with the Ayatollah in Paris.

 

[uscitizen]

Treasonous?

Making deals with an avowed enemy of the USA when not officially empowered to do so.
Yes treason.
It appears that this is where Iran Contra started.

Article 3, US Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Starting a process that resulted in giving arms to an avowed enemy is treason.
It is giving aid.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do you belittle a potentionally treasonous act?

This myth has been so thoroughly exploded that only the most pathetic brain damaged drones continue to maintain it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuMQjKiaDTg]Classic Movie Line #47 - YouTube[/ame]

Is that supposed to bother me?

It sucks to be a proven idiot, doesn't it?

 

[uscitizen]

This myth has been so thoroughly exploded that only the most pathetic brain damaged drones continue to maintain it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuMQjKiaDTg]Classic Movie Line #47 - YouTube[/ame]

Is that supposed to bother me?

It sucks to be a proven idiot, doesn't it?

Well I would not personally know, but I suppose you would?

 

[bripat9643]

Starting a process that resulted in giving arms to an avowed enemy is treason.
It is giving aid.

Since the United States was never at war with Iran, it's not treason.

However, it never happened, so the whole thing is idiotic.

 

[bripat9643]

Is that supposed to bother me?

It sucks to be a proven idiot, doesn't it?

Well I would not personally know, but I suppose you would?

Did you imagine your infantile comeback would convince anyone that you're intelligent?

 

[uscitizen]

Starting a process that resulted in giving arms to an avowed enemy is treason.
It is giving aid.

Since the United States was never at war with Iran, it's not treason.

However, it never happened, so the whole thing is idiotic.

The US has not been "at war" with anyone since the 1940's.

But some seem to think Jane Fonda is guilty of treason.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I read when Bush was 4 y/o he pulled a dogs tail once.

Not good at all.

Aw, c'mon......Lil' Dumbya de Sade could get.....

MUCH-more creative

...than that!!​

 

[bripat9643]

Starting a process that resulted in giving arms to an avowed enemy is treason.
It is giving aid.

Since the United States was never at war with Iran, it's not treason.

However, it never happened, so the whole thing is idiotic.

The US has not been "at war" with anyone since the 1940's.

That's right, so any claims of treason are difficult to make stick, don't you think?

 

[Dot Com]

Lets go to the Bu$h Librarium and have a look- see shall we

The Official George W. Bush Presidential Librarium

 

[Care4all]

so why did the iranians release the hostages right after reagan was inaugurated?

what was their purpose to wait? what advantage of doing such was an advantage to the Iranians?

inquiring minds want to know.....

 

[bripat9643]

so why did the iranians release the hostages right after reagan was inaugurated?

what was their purpose to wait? what advantage of doing such was an advantage to the Iranians?

inquiring minds want to know.....

Simple: they were afraid of Reagan.

On the other hand, they laughed at Jimmy Carter.

 

[California Girl]

Starting a process that resulted in giving arms to an avowed enemy is treason.
It is giving aid.

Since the United States was never at war with Iran, it's not treason.

However, it never happened, so the whole thing is idiotic.

The US has not been "at war" with anyone since the 1940's.

But some seem to think Jane Fonda is guilty of treason.

Boxer, Waxman, Waters, Pelosi. That's real treason. All Democrats. How inconvenient.

 

[California Girl]

so why did the iranians release the hostages right after reagan was inaugurated?

what was their purpose to wait? what advantage of doing such was an advantage to the Iranians?

inquiring minds want to know.....

Inquiring? Somehow, I don't think so.

 

[Care4all]

so why did the iranians release the hostages right after reagan was inaugurated?

what was their purpose to wait? what advantage of doing such was an advantage to the Iranians?

inquiring minds want to know.....

Simple: they were afraid of Reagan.

On the other hand, they laughed at Jimmy Carter.

seriously? You say they were afraid of reagan when he was not even president yet for a week? my my, that's some assumption there, don't ya think?

do you really buy in to that?

 

[Unkotare]

Liberal whiners can just never get over a loss, can they? I'll bet some of the same whiners are still fuming over Lincoln being elected.

 

[bripat9643]

so why did the iranians release the hostages right after reagan was inaugurated?

what was their purpose to wait? what advantage of doing such was an advantage to the Iranians?

inquiring minds want to know.....

Simple: they were afraid of Reagan.

On the other hand, they laughed at Jimmy Carter.

seriously? You say they were afraid of reagan when he was not even president yet for a week? my my, that's some assumption there, don't ya think?

do you really buy in to that?

What difference does it make how long he was in office?

Reagan made it clear he intended to take military action against the Iranians if they didn't release the hostages. Carter made it clear that he was a spineless appeaser.

 

[Truthmatters]

Listen to them NOT wanting details released.


you people are transparent.