Republican poll results

[Matt1970]

"had" doesn't equal "have".

So that makes no sense....Bush and company stated he had them in 2002, when all the facts prove he did not.

So you are just trying to deflect and ignore the truth....we have had enough ignorant trolls spouting off these lies, and guess what, the trolls were all proved wrong. So are you.

Don't know where I lied. As per 14 UN resolutions Saddam was supposed to show proof of their disposal. He never did. Everybody at the time went on public record claiming Saddam eith had WMD's, He needed to be removed from power, or both. That includes Nancy Pelosi, both Hillary and Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and on and on.

It's just now politically expedient for everyone to claim he didn't have them.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't know where I lied. As per 14 UN resolutions Saddam was supposed to show proof of their disposal. He never did. Everybody at the time went on public record claiming Saddam eith had WMD's, He needed to be removed from power, or both. That includes Nancy Pelosi, both Hillary and Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and on and on.

It's just now politically expedient for everyone to claim he didn't have them.

No, we know he didn't have them after conquering his country and looking for them for a number of years.

It is perfectly reasonable for people to have believed he had them immediately before the invasion, even though that turned out to be wrong. For people to believe that he had them immediately before the invasion given what we know now, is a willful denial of reality.

 

[Matt1970]

No, we know he didn't have them after conquering his country and looking for them for a number of years.

It is perfectly reasonable for people to have believed he had them immediately before the invasion, even though that turned out to be wrong. For people to believe that he had them immediately before the invasion given what we know now, is a willful denial of reality.

Well we know he had them at one point. He was supposed to show proof of their disposal. I did hear all the rumors of them being trucked up to Syria right before the invasion which would explain it but they were just that, rumors. I do realize we never found any beyond some traces in some old bombs but all the signs (minus what Bush cooked up) pointed to him having them at the time.

 

[fskimospy]

Well we know he had them at one point. He was supposed to show proof of their disposal. I did hear all the rumors of them being trucked up to Syria right before the invasion which would explain it but they were just that, rumors. I do realize we never found any beyond some traces in some old bombs but all the signs (minus what Bush cooked up) pointed to him having them at the time.

Right, and so reasonable people today should accept that the evidence indicates him not having them when we invaded. The fact that so many people believe he had them in March of 2003 despite so much to the contrary is craziness.

That doesn't mean that Bush knew he didn't have them and decided to invade anyway. (I personally don't think he cared much either way), it just means that we got it wrong.

 

[monovillage]

If by saying in a poll that Obama was born in Africa or that Iraq had WMDs or that Obama stole the election in 2008 I can make a bunch of Democrats cry big tears of anger and frustration i'll answer that way every time.

Fuck them if they can't take a joke.

 

[ky54]

If you have tear down others as the only way to lift yourself up, like believers of these kinds of bait polls, then I guess there's not much to say other than I feel sorry for your miserable existence.

 

[fskimospy]

If by saying in a poll that Obama was born in Africa or that Iraq had WMDs or that Obama stole the election in 2008 I can make a bunch of Democrats cry big tears of anger and frustration i'll answer that way every time.

Fuck them if they can't take a joke.

Yeah seriously, if you go out of your way to say stupid things just to make other people you politically disagree with angry how pathetic are you? What are you, twelve?

 

[monovillage]

Yeah seriously, if you go out of your way to say stupid things just to make other people you politically disagree with angry how pathetic are you? What are you, twelve?

Your tears are delicious.

 

[fskimospy]

Your tears are delicious.

Uhmm, okay. lol. Negative attention is still attention, eh?

 

[Matt1970]

Right, and so reasonable people today should accept that the evidence indicates him not having them when we invaded. The fact that so many people believe he had them in March of 2003 despite so much to the contrary is craziness.

That doesn't mean that Bush knew he didn't have them and decided to invade anyway. (I personally don't think he cared much either way), it just means that we got it wrong.

Of course we got it wrong, unless there is some place we haven't looked yet. There are also a good percentage of people who believe he never had them too. Equally wrong.

 

[Lemon law]

Hey, numb-nut, wanna ask the Kurds and Iran if Saddam had WMD's ??

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That Matt is a time sensitive question, as you are talking like 1988 which preceded Gulf War1 which ended in a treaty requiring Saddam to destroy his WMD.

According to the ill fated Son's in law of Saddam, that authoritatively stated Saddam did indeed destroy the WMD by 1994, basically means our intel community had nothing but rumors and no real intel to say, in 2003, that Saddam still had WMD in 2003.

Which is the real question this thread asked. Making you Matt1970, in all due respects, the numb nut you complained about. As the world shortly had their answer as the 2003 invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam in only two weeks. Only to find, Saddam had NO WMD, none, zippo zit none.

Making GWB&co the bald faced liars any rational person could figure out they were even before hand.

 

[Lemon law]

Woolfie makes a good point here, its maybe what is wrong with partisan politics, because facts can be easily spun.

 

[Matt1970]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That Matt is a time sensitive question, as you are talking like 1988 which preceded Gulf War1 which ended in a treaty requiring Saddam to destroy his WMD.

According to the ill fated Son's in law of Saddam, that authoritatively stated Saddam did indeed destroy the WMD by 1994, basically means our intel community had nothing but rumors and no real intel to say, in 2003, that Saddam still had WMD in 2003.

.

Well as long as his Son-in-law said it I guess we will just go with that. Just so I can read up on it, you got a link?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Don't know where I lied. As per 14 UN resolutions Saddam was supposed to show proof of their disposal. He never did. Everybody at the time went on public record claiming Saddam eith had WMD's, He needed to be removed from power, or both. That includes Nancy Pelosi, both Hillary and Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and on and on.

It's just now politically expedient for everyone to claim he didn't have them.

I didn't say claim did I?

I said that the fact he HAD them before 2002 had/has nothing to do with the fact that he DIDN'T HAVE WMD in 2002.

In other words, your post was totally off-topic and a typical example of deflection from the truth. Something you do alot I see.