• 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.

Republican poll results

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
GarfieldtheCat said:
"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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Matt1970 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
eskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Matt1970 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
monovillage said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
eskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Matt1970 said:
Hey, numb-nut, wanna ask the Kurds and Iran if Saddam had WMD's ??
Click to expand...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 said:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Matt1970 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top