• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Don't Forget to watch 60 minutes tonight! Edit: COULD BUSH BE TRIED FOR TREASON!?!?!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
You're wasting your breath trying to convince them to take an objective look at things. They're so partisan that Bush could shoot a baby in the face with a handgun on national TV and they'd still '~butclinton' it.
 
Originally posted by: PingSpike
You're wasting your breath trying to convince them to take an objective look at things. They're so partisan that Bush could shoot a baby in the face with a handgun on national TV and they'd still '~butclinton' it.

You're wasting your breath trying to convince them to take an objective look at things. They're so partisan that if someone claimed on national TV that Bush shot a baby in the face they'd still believe it.

😉

CkG
 
Busmaster11 Hans blix said they didnt find any weapons but they also didnt find evidence of them destroying what they had. Dont give me BS about avoiding right wing. WMD were there, there was no proof they were destroyed. The UN and its dozen+ resolutions say WMD are there and saddam continues to ignore UN orders. SO everyone beleived they were there. Look back on some quotes from big Liberals, even they said they were there. IM sick and tired of liberals making an issue out of nothing. Everyone thought they were there and should have. The UN, Congress, Bush admin, etc.

1441 starts with these listed
"calling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999,
      Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

          Recognizing the threat Iraq?s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"

Those say saddam needs to disarm, but no your right bush admin lied about WMD and the UN said they were there just to throw bush off. Get real.

EDIT: im tired of this crap new thread(final one ) on WMD coming up.
 
Originally posted by: AEB
Busmaster11 Hans blix said they didnt find any weapons but they also didnt find evidence of them destroying what they had.

So no weapons and no evidence of them being destroyed is proof of their existence? Makes sense to me!
 
Originally posted by: AEB
This is amazing you guys believe 1 nutjob over the entire government. Bush points to the intell, and as far as i know no members in the intell community have stepped forward and said I told him saddam wasnt a threat.

And that clarke guy is a tool, we are in Afgan too, he makes it sound like we ignored afgan to go after iraq, holy crap multitasking
That's not correct. While I won't claim that's an exact quote, there have been numerous stories of insiders complaining they were ignored or worse when they tried to provide accurate intel to the Bush adminstration. Many have been discussed here. Look for "The Man who Knew", for starters.

Clarke's point re. Afghanistan is quite valid. Compare the resources we sent to Iraq with the pittance we sent after al Qaeda. It's an embarrassment. It's no wonder we don't have bin Laden yet.
 
Originally posted by: AEB
Busmaster11 Hans blix said they didnt find any weapons but they also didnt find evidence of them destroying what they had. ...
That's also not correct. On the contrary, Blix acknowledged they found significant evidence Iraq destroyed WMDs. Just last week he reiterated this on O'Reilley. The Iraqis took the U.N. inspectors to sites where they claimed they destroyed WMDs. Blix tested the soil at those locations and could confirm their claims. What he could not confirm is the quantity of weapons destroyed.

It would really help if you educated yourself better about the facts on Iraq/WMDs/etc. before you start jumping on others. Much of what the Bush spinmeisters told you was inaccurate.
 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: AEB
Busmaster11 Hans blix said they didnt find any weapons but they also didnt find evidence of them destroying what they had. ...
That's also not correct. On the contrary, Blix acknowledged they found significant evidence Iraq destroyed WMDs. Just last week he reiterated this on O'Reilley. The Iraqis took the U.N. inspectors to sites where they claimed they destroyed WMDs. Blix tested the soil at those locations and could confirm their claims. What he could not confirm is the quantity of weapons destroyed.

It would really help if you educated yourself better about the facts on Iraq/WMDs/etc. before you start jumping on others. Much of what the Bush spinmeisters told you was inaccurate.

right they had no way of determining the amount actually destroyed, and the iraqi's somehow "forgot" to keep track...riiiggghhhht. plus do not forget the WMD the UN knew they had but STILL cannot account for.

the dismissing of the WMD components found in weapons caches by saying "well they could be used for legitimate purposes" is plain dumb, most of the time the components are only mixed not long before use and have a short shelf life.

so pray tell what should have been done after over a decade of breaking the cease fire agreement? just assume the blew them all up and keep on with sanctions that only starved the iraqi people for over a decade while doing nothing to erode saddams power?


 
clark is a joke! as i watched the interview you could see his eyes moving side to side as he read the script.

it is just the dems using 911 for political gain...but of course they do not hold themselves to rules they make for others.

come november i am pulling the republican lever because of the total abject hypocrasy of the democrats.
 
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
clark is a joke! as i watched the interview you could see his eyes moving side to side as he read the script.

it is just the dems using 911 for political gain...but of course they do not hold themselves to rules they make for others.

come november i am pulling the republican lever because of the total abject hypocrasy of the democrats.
You already made this BS claim in another thread. It doesn't get better with age.
 
More disinformation. You and AEB are becoming quite proficient at it.

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: AEB
Busmaster11 Hans blix said they didnt find any weapons but they also didnt find evidence of them destroying what they had. ...
That's also not correct. On the contrary, Blix acknowledged they found significant evidence Iraq destroyed WMDs. Just last week he reiterated this on O'Reilley. The Iraqis took the U.N. inspectors to sites where they claimed they destroyed WMDs. Blix tested the soil at those locations and could confirm their claims. What he could not confirm is the quantity of weapons destroyed.

It would really help if you educated yourself better about the facts on Iraq/WMDs/etc. before you start jumping on others. Much of what the Bush spinmeisters told you was inaccurate.

right they had no way of determining the amount actually destroyed, and the iraqi's somehow "forgot" to keep track...riiiggghhhht. plus do not forget the WMD the UN knew they had but STILL cannot account for.
Actually, they did. It just didn't meet George's standards for accuracy, completeness, or telling him only what he wanted to hear.


the dismissing of the WMD components found in weapons caches by saying "well they could be used for legitimate purposes" is plain dumb, most of the time the components are only mixed not long before use and have a short shelf life.
Please document whatever you're talking about. Otherwise, I will assume it's just another Limbaugh/Coulter pseudo-fact.


so pray tell what should have been done after over a decade of breaking the cease fire agreement? just assume the blew them all up and keep on with sanctions that only starved the iraqi people for over a decade while doing nothing to erode saddams power?
Take the time to continue the inspections, consider alternatives, build a real coalition, and develop an exit strategy. Most of all, teach King George and his minions that lying is wrong, the end does not justify the means, and any "accomplishments" achieved through dishonest means are irreparably tainted, no matter what.

 
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
clark is a joke! as i watched the interview you could see his eyes moving side to side as he read the script.

it is just the dems using 911 for political gain...but of course they do not hold themselves to rules they make for others.

come november i am pulling the republican lever because of the total abject hypocrasy of the democrats.

Anyone know with whom he teaches a class at Havard...anyone? anyone? Kerry? anyone?
 
Originally posted by: AEB
Busmaster11 Hans blix said they didnt find any weapons but they also didnt find evidence of them destroying what they had.

It is an immesurable stretch to go from this to a unilatteral decision to wage war on a sovereign country, and I find it appalling you neocons will never understand that.

 
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
clark is a joke! as i watched the interview you could see his eyes moving side to side as he read the script.

it is just the dems using 911 for political gain...but of course they do not hold themselves to rules they make for others.

come november i am pulling the republican lever because of the total abject hypocrasy of the democrats.

Anyone know with whom he teaches a class at Havard...anyone? anyone? Kerry? anyone?

Clarke is a lecturer at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and teaches a class there with Rand Beers, Kerry's chief national security adviser. Yes, I'm sure you'll infer from this that Clarke is now working for Kerry's campaign. Go ahead, I know you want to. Even though you'd be full of it as usual.

Anyone want to guess who tunes Clarke's snowboard? Could it be connected to Kerry? Hmmmm?
rolleye.gif
 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger

so pray tell what should have been done after over a decade of breaking the cease fire agreement? just assume the blew them all up and keep on with sanctions that only starved the iraqi people for over a decade while doing nothing to erode saddams power?
Take the time to continue the inspections, consider alternatives, build a real coalition, and develop an exit strategy. Most of all, teach King George and his minions that lying is wrong, the end does not justify the means, and any "accomplishments" achieved through dishonest means are irreparably tainted, no matter what.

Funny. That sounds a LOT like Sen. Kerry's position.


Hmmmm....
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
clark is a joke! as i watched the interview you could see his eyes moving side to side as he read the script.

it is just the dems using 911 for political gain...but of course they do not hold themselves to rules they make for others.

come november i am pulling the republican lever because of the total abject hypocrasy of the democrats.

Anyone know with whom he teaches a class at Havard...anyone? anyone? Kerry? anyone?

Clarke is a lecturer at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and teaches a class there with Rand Beers, Kerry's chief national security adviser. Yes, I'm sure you'll infer from this that Clarke is now working for Kerry's campaign. Go ahead, I know you want to. Even though you'd be full of it as usual.

Anyone want to guess who tunes Clarke's snowboard? Could it be connected to Kerry? Hmmmm?
rolleye.gif


Interesting.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Hehe 😀

LOL!

Actually I was way off the line on that one.
Here is a more accurate picture 😀

Hehe

Not so funny. That pic is from when he was addressing some school children and we was told of the planes hitting the WTC 🙁

rose.gif

Which sadly is still better than Bush using the entire event for political traction.

I don't think Bush should be tried for Treason, gross incompetence maybe, but not Treason.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Bowfinger

so pray tell what should have been done after over a decade of breaking the cease fire agreement? just assume the blew them all up and keep on with sanctions that only starved the iraqi people for over a decade while doing nothing to erode saddams power?
Take the time to continue the inspections, consider alternatives, build a real coalition, and develop an exit strategy. Most of all, teach King George and his minions that lying is wrong, the end does not justify the means, and any "accomplishments" achieved through dishonest means are irreparably tainted, no matter what.

Funny. That sounds a LOT like Sen. Kerry's position.


Hmmmm....

Is that because kerry has for and against positions on every issue?
 
Back
Top