1 posted on
06/06/2003 9:19:23 AM PDT by
F_Cohen
To: F_Cohen
If Bush was deliberately lying about WMD, why didn't he have WMD ready to plant in Iraq? Then this whole thing would be a non-issue.
2 posted on
06/06/2003 9:21:06 AM PDT by
xm177e2
(Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
To: F_Cohen
"No Weapons. Bush Lied", "No Weapons. Bush Lied."Here's the deal: does a mafia hitman ever get caught w/ the murder weapon? Does it mean he never had one? Why the mafia analogy? When was there ever a larger crime syndicate than the Saddam regime?
Here's another: We haven't found Saddam yet, either. Does that mean HE didn't exist?
3 posted on
06/06/2003 9:26:11 AM PDT by
Migraine
(my grain is pretty straight today)
To: F_Cohen
Then again, if he was going to lie, why not lie about WMD, and then make exactly the same, valid arguments found in this article?
If I were a liberal, that'd be my response.
5 posted on
06/06/2003 9:33:15 AM PDT by
newgeezer
(A conservative who conserves -- a true capitalist!)
To: F_Cohen
The other thing: If Bush conveyed false information about WMD before the war, he did so because the UN information was false. Go back to his speech to the UN. He used their own data to build the case for UN action against Saddam.
8 posted on
06/06/2003 9:35:33 AM PDT by
My2Cents
("Well....there you go again.")
To: F_Cohen
Repeat after me: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence."
To: F_Cohen
§ George J. Tenet §
If the Liberals within our intelligence community have set Bush up with a false scenario, then they must be exposed and heads must roll. The problem is that the Director of Central Intelligence was appointed by one or both of the Clintons on July 11, 1997 and anything is possible.
11 posted on
06/06/2003 9:36:59 AM PDT by
Consort
To: F_Cohen
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. May 30-June 1, 2003. N=1,019 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
. |
"Now, wed like to ask you some questions about Iraq. First, how would you say things are going for the U.S. in Iraq now that the major fighting has ended: very well, moderately well, moderately badly, or very badly?" |
|
|
Very Well |
Moder- ately Well |
Moder- ately Badly |
Very Badly |
No Opinion |
|
|
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
|
5-6/03 |
11 |
59 |
22 |
7 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
. |
"Do you think the Bush Administration does or does not have a clear plan for improving conditions in Iraq and helping the Iraqi civilians rebuild their country?" |
|
|
Does |
Does Not |
No Opinion |
|
|
|
|
% |
% |
% |
|
|
|
5-6/03 |
56 |
41 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. |
"In the long run, do you think the U.S. war with Iraq will end up creating more problems than it solves or will end up solving more problems than it creates?" Options rotated |
|
|
Creating More |
Solving More |
No Opinion |
|
|
|
|
% |
% |
% |
|
|
|
5-6/03 |
42 |
53 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. |
"Which comes closest to your view about the war with Iraq? It was justified only if the U.S. finds conclusive evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. It was justified even if the U.S. DOES NOT find conclusive evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. OR, It was not justified even if the U.S. finds conclusive evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?" Options rotated |
|
|
Justified Only If Find Evidence |
Justified Even If Does Not Find Evidence |
Not Justified |
No Opinion |
|
|
|
% |
% |
% |
% |
|
|
5-6/03 |
23 |
56 |
18 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. |
"Do you think the Bush Administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or not?" |
|
|
Deliber- ately Misled |
Did Not Mislead |
No Opinion |
|
|
|
|
% |
% |
% |
|
|
|
5-6/03 |
31 |
67 |
2 |
|
20 posted on
06/06/2003 9:45:37 AM PDT by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: F_Cohen
We must believe that countries like Germany, France and Russia, whose intelligence services supported American conclusions, were likewise in on it. And we must believe that this wily "survivor" decided to convince the world of his innocence and dissuade the coalition massed on his southern border by threatening to use weapons that he supposedly destroyed.
I don't recall either of those things. Anybody know what he's talking about?
24 posted on
06/06/2003 9:48:31 AM PDT by
lasereye
To: F_Cohen
I think it's simple really...He's waiting for Hillary to ask where they are publicly...notice she or Bill hasn't (which should speak volumes)...but of course to do so would be to deny with no credibility the entire reason for Bill's timed assault on Iraq to coincide with Monica-gate. And if and when she does, imagine how stupid she would look in either case...and this woman wants to be President...
29 posted on
06/06/2003 9:51:13 AM PDT by
grumple
To: F_Cohen
It is becoming increasingly clear that the democrats would do anything to win back power. They are ready to destroy this country to obtain absolute power over the sheeples. The democrats would rather rule a 3rd world and impoverished
USA than have the Republicans and Conservatives remain in power over a prosperous America and only hyper-power on earth.
To: F_Cohen
![](http://www.timesunion.com/news/september11/timeline/graphics/0811hatfill.jpg)
Ask this man. He knows the real story.
43 posted on
06/06/2003 10:38:16 AM PDT by
The Great Satan
(Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
To: F_Cohen
I would think if Bush had lied about WMDs wouldnt he have planted some to cover it up? Im not saying that he lied so no flames please.
To: F_Cohen
Something else that doesn't make any sense: Saddam Hussein and the entire Ba'athist regime going to the grave protecting George Bush's lie.
59 posted on
06/06/2003 12:15:15 PM PDT by
Redcloak
(All work and no FReep makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no FReep make s Jack a dul boy. Allwork an)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson