Yes, the explosives would be much safer if we had left them where they belong: in the hands of Saddam. /Democrap Logic.
Posted on 10/25/2004 6:36:16 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Just a thought - has anyone looked to see if this stuff is on EBay?
No, they won't.
Everybody can see it's a nothing story being twisted such as it is (so far no traction whatsoever, of course) to try and send a message that the American public knows is false (that Bush is a bumbling fool who doesn't care about security or the safety of our troops is the underlying message which only the mouth breathers over at DU will believe).
post marker bump
Yes, we "folks" realize it.
Why would you think we didn't?
!
But...but...I thought Iraq wasn't dangerous. Doesn't Kerry always go on about that?
No, it won't. Just watch.
Exactly.
The UN is not to be trusted and we have proof to back that up.
Surely you must be wrong. Michael Moore showed pictures of pre-invasion Iraq and it was a peaceful place filled with love and harmony and kids flying kites. In addition, the 'Rats have told us that Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone.
Here's what must have happened. Iraq was a peaceful, loving place with no stockpiles of weapons. But when the out-of-control cowboy president George Bush began talking about an unprovoked attack on that innocent pacifist nation, some neighboring countries sent Saddam some weapons. They did this because it was the right thing to do, and I'm sure the French would agree. However, Saddam didn't believe in violence, even if attacked. He quoted Gandhi, and then dumped the weapons out in the desert, having no plans to ever use them. The poor, peaceful man then hid in a hole, not wanting to be a part of the evil violence that had been unleashed around him.
However, there were other pacifists in Iraq who were changed by the evil and unprovoked American invasion. When American troops came roaring into Iraq, raping and pillaging, and ravaging the countryside in a manner reminiscent of the armies of "Jen-jis" Khan, these pacifists were converted into men of violence. Their backs were against the wall, and they had no choice but to abandon their lifelong pacifism. Thus, they seized the weapons Saddam had dumped, right under the noses of the evil, but stupid, U.S. Marines. They drove 25 sixteen-wheelers up, spent a couple of days loading them, and drove away with the bombs, while our guys were busy raping teen girls and looting mosques.
That must be what happened, because otherwise there's something wrong with the 'Rat storyline.
Let me put this in perspective -- the bomb that took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland used less than one pound of this same explosive. There were 760,000 pounds at Al Qaqaa.
Now who's doing to FEARmongering???
IT SMELLS ... they are all in on it
Yes, the explosives would be much safer if we had left them where they belong: in the hands of Saddam. /Democrap Logic.
I recall reading an article in the American Enterprise from last year about the bomb dumps in Iraq (if memory serves) Iraq is pretty much one giant bombdump.
I'm watching - they're moving.
You are aware this story turned out to be bogus, right?
And before you claim the truth won't get out, you're wrong.
The polls are moving to Bush.
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.