Skip to comments.
RandallFlagg: WMDs = Cheese
4-12-4
| RandallFlagg
Posted on 04/12/2004 6:18:05 AM PDT by RandallFlagg
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
This is my first "Blog-type" post to this section. I might add to it later as more news is made public.
Thanks for reading my mind.
To: RandallFlagg
Very interesting theory... one I can believe.
I have always determined that the media is so stupid to ever think that our gov't officials would ever disclose information. Yet, they seem to persist in asking those idiotic questions. Because those go unanswered, the media think they have that 'gotcha' moment. Jeez.
The latest claim is the 'ultra secretive Bush administration.' Good! There is something about GW that I can admire and trust.
2
posted on
04/12/2004 7:24:13 AM PDT
by
Abynormal
To: Abynormal
EXACTLY! Does the left and media really want Bush to have shouted from the top of the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN, "We won't ever find Iraq's WMDs. They were never there. All you terrorists can run back into hiding now," and see what happens?
Wait! Perhaps they do so they can blame something ELSE on Bush.
3
posted on
04/12/2004 9:35:53 AM PDT
by
RandallFlagg
(<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">miserable failure)
To: RandallFlagg
Bump for the first day of blogging on Free Republic!!
4
posted on
04/12/2004 10:23:35 PM PDT
by
potlatch
( Medals do not make a man. Morals do.)
To: RandallFlagg
Good post, and please ping me if you ever do get any trolls to take the bait. Of course, you have to be careful, because the fighting might get so intense, you may get the thread moved to the "Smokey Backroom". hehe
To: RandallFlagg
Very interesting, R.F.
6
posted on
04/18/2004 2:44:38 AM PDT
by
risk
To: RandallFlagg
Good first post, correlates with my thoughts re War on Terror.
From the US perspective, the best defense was an offense and Iraq was the place to put our defense not the USA homeland. Let 'em come and let us Kill them there. I think it will work, we just cannot go Wobbley.
7
posted on
04/20/2004 4:20:50 AM PDT
by
iopscusa
(El Vaquero)
To: RandallFlagg
Good thoughts.
I have got to check out this blogging stuff;
To: RandallFlagg
Although there are obvious benefits to keeping weapon stockpiles quiet, is it worth losing the election? At what point does President Bush take this ammunition away from his critics and reveal the evidence of greater amounts of WMDs?
9
posted on
07/02/2004 12:01:22 PM PDT
by
Eagle2001
To: Eagle2001
Although there are obvious benefits to keeping weapon stockpiles quiet, is it worth losing the election?
President Bush probably feels that keeping American lives safe from these weapons is more vital than an election.
At what point does President Bush take this ammunition away from his critics and reveal the evidence of greater amounts of WMDs?
The timing seems perfect. We've almost got the terrorists in Iraq routed out, Syria is coming under closer scrutiny, and Saddam is standing trial.
I can completely forsee President Bush making an address to the people something like this:
"We have always known, as Secretary Powell has stated in the past, where Saddam's stockpiles were. This strategy killed 2 birds with one stone: we gained intelligence vital to the mission, and we killed and captured terrorists who would have murdered every single person living in America had they succeeded in their evil plans.
If we had simply went into Iraq and siezed Saddam's Weapons, the seekers of those weapons would be free to flee to other nations in the region to seek out other means of acquiring these deadly items to serve their purpose.
If the American people feel like I betrayed their trust by keeping this secret out of the public view for their own security, you can feel free to vote me out of this office in November. What I chose to do, I chose to do in order to defend and protect American lives; not keep myself in office. I believe that the American Presidency is more about that, than simply politics and power."
I think the nation would be grateful for President Bush to have made this decision. Especially after he revealed how many actual WMDs we found and confirmed.
I think it will suprise many -myself included.
10
posted on
07/02/2004 12:24:25 PM PDT
by
RandallFlagg
(<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">Hatriotism)
To: RandallFlagg
Clever..... I like your theory.
To: RandallFlagg
Pretty good theory, and it jibes pretty well with mine that the WMD's we widely completely destroyed in the opening sorties of the war. You can find my outline
here.
12
posted on
07/02/2004 10:40:31 PM PDT
by
numberonepal
(goodnewsamerica.us Fast News For Common Sense People)
To: RandallFlagg
A good read.Thanks for posting your thoughts. :-)
To: RandallFlagg
It makes a great deal of sense. Everyone knows the WMD's were there, and they didn't just "vanish." We recently removed several tons of uranium from Iraq (though this has not received any mention in the "mainstream" press).
To: wagglebee
To: RandallFlagg
Well my theory is that we killed or captured Osama long ago and WE are making the tapes urging terrorists to fight in Iraq where we are killing them at a 175 to 1 ratio. The media whining about a "quagmire" helps that strategery. The WMD's are (mostly) safely out of harm's way on some boat and Syria etc.
The Afgan campaign destroyed the training camps and madrasses, but it scattered many existing terrorists and freed them of their command structure making them more dangerous. Hence Iraq.
16
posted on
07/11/2004 1:43:19 PM PDT
by
Poincare
To: Poincare
I thought of that as well, but that might be considered by too many to be something along the lines of, "SEE?! Bush IS the terrorist, and is responsible for all terror-related deaths after he captured OBL because he didn't tell anyone the truth. If he would have told the truth about OBL's capture or death, the terrorists would have given up."
Yes, the librats ARE that dim.
17
posted on
07/11/2004 1:54:52 PM PDT
by
RandallFlagg
(<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">Hatriotism)
To: RandallFlagg
Maybe that is why President Bush was so peeved at Kerry during the first debate - Kerry knew the administration deal (he had to be briefed, after all...) and still used the "public lie" against Bush.
18
posted on
11/11/2004 7:52:12 AM PST
by
bitt
(I miss Teresa already.)
To: bitt
Yeah. President Bush did look like he was biting his tongue pretty hard that evening.
19
posted on
11/11/2004 8:50:19 AM PST
by
RandallFlagg
(FReepers, Do NOT let the voter fraud stories die!!!! (Magnetic bumper stickers-click my name))
20
posted on
11/25/2004 6:46:10 AM PST
by
RandallFlagg
(FReepers, Do NOT let the voter fraud stories die!!!! (Magnetic bumper stickers-click my name))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson