Posted on 05/25/2003 3:01:52 AM PDT by sarcasm
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:42:38 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I actually think that we are finding things but are waiting for verification from third parties, in order to avoid the charges of "planting."
Of course it is. If we had already found WMDs, you can bet AVRWC would have been screaming "plant!" and "how could they have found them so quickly in a country the size of California?"
He is utterly transparent.
As noted on FR many times, Saddam was alive right up until the war began yet we haven't found him. Does that mean he actually never existed? Same goes for UBL. Were these people simply the creation of flawed CIA/DIA intelligence?
Since you claim Bush et.al. were lying to us to go to war, maybe you can tell us the real reason. Was it the old Hollywood standby, "big oil"?
I suppose this person is lying as well.
And this would have been when, for Iraq?
It's funny that you mention this. Unlike WMD's, we were able to 'see' Saddam. Seeing him would indicate his existence - and let's not go too deep into that meaning of existence or reality.
On the WMD side, the only things that I saw was some leaky, rusty barrels which turned out to be fertilizer or rat poison (we DO want to poisont the 'rats', don't we?). Well... Heraldo and his colleagues did 'see' dozens of 'SCUDs' but... you know Heraldo...
Accuse 'the US'? What does it mean? As for 'finding' WMDs... I expect most of the rest of the world to suspect some 'planting' if anything significant is announced this late. I do not expect the cable news audience to doubt that the evidence was genuine, especially if confirmed to be so by Heraldo.
" Those who are not with us are with the terrorist"
That is not nearly as threatening as the quote you are assigning to him.
Accuse 'the US'? What does it mean?
THE US. Our country. The people who are looking. The good guys.
Try to keep up.
As for 'finding' WMDs... I expect most of the rest of the world to suspect some 'planting' if anything significant is announced this late. I do not expect the cable news audience to doubt that the evidence was genuine, especially if confirmed to be so by Heraldo.
No.
I didn't ask about the "rest of the world" or the "cable news audience", I asked about YOU.
Be honest (I know I'm stretching here). WHEN the discovery of WMDs are announced, how long will it take for you to claim the evidence was planted? Or will you take the evidence at face value?
I love it when the bots gain enough self-confidence to express thoughts more complex than 'bump' or 'BTTT'.
Let's see... what would qualify me for DU membership? (Incidentally I did try to enter their 'debate' and I survived there for about 30 seconds. But that's a different story.)
The DU's would be happy to have me because:
- I found W's decision to sign the campaign finance 'reform' law quite disgusting.
- I still remember that W promised to withdraw the troops Clinton placed in Bosnia, Kosovo etc. and do NOT engage in 'nation building'? - I don't support W's support of the WMD ban law extension?
- Unlike W, I believe that government spending needs to be cut?
- Unlike W (but like Ronald Reagan and the Contract with America) I support the abolition of the Dept. of Education? (W inflated it more than Clinton did).
- Unlike W, I believe that ALL illegal immigrants should be actively pursued and, when found, kicked out of the country immediately rather than encourage more illegals to get in?
- Unlike W, I do agree with Lott that if Sen. Thurmond's was elected when he ran for prez., we would have been spared a lot of trouble?
Should I continue? Clearly, there is a visible leftward movement of what used to be called 'the conservatives'. I guess, most of you just decided to 'go with the flow', which is what's expected from the masses. If you don't manage to push the Dems a lot farther to the left you will soon have to option but merge with them.
Remember, not all old communist states were 'one-party' systems. In many of them - Bulgaria, GDR, Poland - there were several token parties, united in a permanent coalition that controlled 100% of the so-called democratically elected government.
How could you possibly support Reagan?
But... I forgot, today's conservatives supported W's support of the campaign finance 'reform' and seem to be 'oh so willing' to support W's announced support of the 'assault weapons ban extension'.
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.