- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,518
- 2,165
- Banned
- #421
JRK tried the same thing Doosh Girl is trying, which is lying.
She is fail
She is fail
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.
We invaded because of suppoed WMDs that did not exist.
All the other stuff doesn't matter.
WMDs DID exist. Another lie from the left.
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq - With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com
You guys just can't help yourselves, can you?
By the time these remnants were found they were no longer usable weapons. They were not the weapons President Bush claimed iraq was actively producing and stockpiling. They certainly posed no significant or immediate danger to the USA.
WMDs DID exist. Another lie from the left.
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq - With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com
You guys just can't help yourselves, can you?
By the time these remnants were found they were no longer usable weapons. They were not the weapons President Bush claimed iraq was actively producing and stockpiling. They certainly posed no significant or immediate danger to the USA.
Another lie.
Show me some proof the chemicals were inert. They weren't. It's a lie. and you are repeating the lie. Knowingly I suspect.
As to Reagan and chemical weapons? Another bald-faced lie. When the New Yawk Slimes did that article that you're thinking of (if you're even capable of independent thought -- which I doubt) they were only accusing the Reagan Administration being AWARE that Saddam was using WMDs on civilians. Which has been vehemently denied anyway.
Bald-faced liars. All of you. Small wonder you vote for the scum of the earth. You're no different than they are
Not to mention really, really stupid
By the time these remnants were found they were no longer usable weapons. They were not the weapons President Bush claimed iraq was actively producing and stockpiling. They certainly posed no significant or immediate danger to the USA.
Another lie.
Show me some proof the chemicals were inert. They weren't. It's a lie. and you are repeating the lie. Knowingly I suspect.
As to Reagan and chemical weapons? Another bald-faced lie. When the New Yawk Slimes did that article that you're thinking of (if you're even capable of independent thought -- which I doubt) they were only accusing the Reagan Administration being AWARE that Saddam was using WMDs on civilians. Which has been vehemently denied anyway.
Bald-faced liars. All of you. Small wonder you vote for the scum of the earth. You're no different than they are
Not to mention really, really stupid
DooshEdgetho continues to lie. The WMDs described by the neo-cons in 2002 are not the remnants of old, decaying stuff that were inert
If they weren't, the neo-cons would have been yelling it from the roof tops.
Neo-cons are guaranteeing the re-election of Obama with these lies.
That and a never-ending need to get the last word in. Always.
CC this is a message board that is here to discuss politics
Now let that soak in
Think CC about the irony of your thread
Jake, your not even being taken seriously, have not been for a long time
Fantasies?
1.4 trillion dollar deficts is a relaity
UE numbers are a reality
Obama care turning out to be one lie after another is a relaity
These events have nothing to do with me Jake
Why do you keep making a fool of your self? you think your issues with getting along with your fellow Americans bothers me?
It is sad Jake, I mean that
I feel sorry for you
See....
No WMD's found--another bit of reality you've refused to accept.
WMDs DID exist. Another lie from the left.
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq - With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com
You guys just can't help yourselves, can you?
By the time these remnants were found they were no longer usable weapons. They were not the weapons President Bush claimed iraq was actively producing and stockpiling. They certainly posed no significant or immediate danger to the USA.
Another lie.
Show me some proof the chemicals were inert. They weren't. It's a lie. and you are repeating the lie. Knowingly I suspect.
As to Reagan and chemical weapons? Another bald-faced lie. When the New Yawk Slimes did that article that you're thinking of (if you're even capable of independent thought -- which I doubt) they were only accusing the Reagan Administration being AWARE that Saddam was using WMDs on civilians. Which has been vehemently denied anyway.
Bald-faced liars. All of you. Small wonder you vote for the scum of the earth. You're no different than they are
Not to mention really, really stupid
To start with it was not GWB place in life to prove any-thing
It was Saddams
The UN stated on Jan 27th 2003 Saddam (Iraq) was lying
We invade weeks later
Now howis that GWB fault????????????
Update 27 January 2003
read the context libs and stop lying
To start with it was not GWB place in life to prove any-thing
It was Saddams
The UN stated on Jan 27th 2003 Saddam (Iraq) was lying
We invade weeks later
Now howis that GWB fault????????????
Update 27 January 2003
read the context libs and stop lying
As CiC is certain was.
Blix did not state that! Furthermore that was not his final report on the matter, in the end his report he asks for more time for the inspectors.
These are still fails for you Jr.
To start with it was not GWB place in life to prove any-thing
It was Saddams
The UN stated on Jan 27th 2003 Saddam (Iraq) was lying
We invade weeks later
Now howis that GWB fault????????????
Update 27 January 2003
read the context libs and stop lying
As CiC is certain was.
Blix did not state that! Furthermore that was not his final report on the matter, in the end his report he asks for more time for the inspectors.
These are still fails for you Jr.
Besides, you can't prove a negative...Saddam was supposed to prove he didn't have something? Ahhh..
As CiC is certain was.
Blix did not state that! Furthermore that was not his final report on the matter, in the end his report he asks for more time for the inspectors.
These are still fails for you Jr.
Besides, you can't prove a negative...Saddam was supposed to prove he didn't have something? Ahhh..
I agree it was not the final report, but it was the last one that GWB and congress needed
I do not understand what you mean CC by you cannot prove a negaitive?
Read the link CC
The Iraqis made lclaim they had roughly 19,000 munitions that were classified WMDs as part of the surrender agreement in Desert storm
No-one else made that claim
They presented evidence, as was with-in the agreement or terms of the surrender (from here-on know as the "terms") of destructing around 13000
There was a 6000 munition difference they could not explain as to why and where they went
Same with Anthrax
Same with nerve gas
No-one made these claims but Saddam (The Iraqi govt)
He never claimed he lied
He never provided evidence that those munitions were destroyed. Blix reported this on Jan 27th 2003
Ok?do you understand that GWB nor the UN made these claims. Saddam did as part of the "terms" he agreed to
Besides, you can't prove a negative...Saddam was supposed to prove he didn't have something? Ahhh..
I agree it was not the final report, but it was the last one that GWB and congress needed
I do not understand what you mean CC by you cannot prove a negaitive?
Read the link CC
The Iraqis made lclaim they had roughly 19,000 munitions that were classified WMDs as part of the surrender agreement in Desert storm
No-one else made that claim
They presented evidence, as was with-in the agreement or terms of the surrender (from here-on know as the "terms") of destructing around 13000
There was a 6000 munition difference they could not explain as to why and where they went
Same with Anthrax
Same with nerve gas
No-one made these claims but Saddam (The Iraqi govt)
He never claimed he lied
He never provided evidence that those munitions were destroyed. Blix reported this on Jan 27th 2003
Ok?do you understand that GWB nor the UN made these claims. Saddam did as part of the "terms" he agreed to
The quote from the report is cherry picked from the middle and does not reflect Blix's conclusion.
There was never any concusive evidence that there were any missing WMD. There was a small % of precusor chemicals that they said were destroyed but lacked sufficent documentation to prove it. Blix had interviews lined up with the people who supposedly destroyed those stocks, but President Bush pulled the trigger and started the invasion and occupation before the UN mandated weapons inspection concluded.