To: jazusamo
It's about time that the Repubs are starting to refute the Dems ridiculous claims. ButI can't even think of an excuse as to why they've kept this information secret while letting themselves get pummeled. If this is a rope-a-dope strategy, it will backfire. Everyone will now question their motives and they will need to explain themselves. I hope it's good.
98 posted on
06/21/2006 3:25:40 PM PDT by
demkicker
(democrats and terrorists are intimate bedfellows)
To: demkicker
ButI can't even think of an excuse as to why they've kept this information secret while letting themselves get pummeled. The reason any WMD's in Iraq would be kept secret would be to keep Al Queda from digging around looking for it before we could find it.
105 posted on
06/21/2006 3:31:05 PM PDT by
Ramius
(Buy blades for war fighters: freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net --> 1400 knives and counting!)
To: demkicker
ButI can't even think of an excuse as to why they've kept this information secret Nor can I, I think most everyone knew they were there (even many Dems). I have a hunch Santorum was correct in saying President Bush didn't want to revisit it and get in a huge battle over it.
107 posted on
06/21/2006 3:33:07 PM PDT by
jazusamo
(DIANA IREY for Congress, PA 12th District: Retire murtha.)
To: demkicker
But I can't even think of an excuse as to why they've kept this information secret while letting themselves get pummeled. If you announce that there are WMDs in Iraq, terrorists from all over the middle east would flock to Iraq faster than the 1849 gold rush to California. By essentially stating that there were no WMDs, nobody except the US is actively looking for (and finding) WMDs. Make sense?
466 posted on
06/22/2006 9:46:41 AM PDT by
Go Gordon
(I don't know what your problem is, but I bet its hard to pronounce)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson