Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People (Updated)
Right Wing News ^ | June 19, 2003 | John Hawkins

Posted on 06/19/2003 6:11:23 AM PDT by conservativecorner

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last
We all need to keep pressing the flip floppers with their own words.
1 posted on 06/19/2003 6:11:24 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

I'm sure I'll be flamed handily for saying this, but it's been bugging me for a while now. We've talked so much about how much more we can "trust" President Bush than someone like the 'toon. But, I can't help but see an disheartening similarity between clinton's finger waving, and Mr. Powel holding up the vial of "anthrax" powder at the u.n. To me, the Bush administration made it all about the urgency - the impending disaster. Sure, you can argue all you want about, "well, the u.n. was looking for months, it will take time". But to me, just an average joe in Wisconsin, I honestly expected them to be able to produce SOMETHING in the way of evidence, especially after how they had hounded us daily about the MASSIVE amounts of weapons at his disposal. I read somewhere else here this morning that the administration feels that any voter displeasure over the inability to find any WMD will be overshadowed the the overall succcess of the operation. Well, say what you want, but I hold the administration to a higher standard than that.
2 posted on 06/19/2003 6:16:22 AM PDT by homeschool_dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad
an = a (sorry for the bad grammar)
3 posted on 06/19/2003 6:17:34 AM PDT by homeschool_dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner; kristinn; Angelwood; FreeTheHostages
Bump! These would make some nice Posters for a Freep


4 posted on 06/19/2003 6:21:38 AM PDT by W04Man (Bush2004 Grassroots Campaign aka BushBot www.w-04.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
bump for later reading
5 posted on 06/19/2003 6:22:16 AM PDT by boxerblues (God bless the 101st and keep them safe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
I think it was on Scarborough last evening where I saw a graphic which showed the chemical and biological cache Saddam admitted having in 1998. It was unnerving to see how much of many lethal substanced he had.

The tone of recent allegations against GWB and the Iraqi Regime change has been that the WMD's may not exist.

Since Saddam admitted having them in 1998, the bigger question, if they are not found in Iraq, is "Where are they now?" Such lethal substances just don't dissolve into thin air.
6 posted on 06/19/2003 6:27:13 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
We all need to keep pressing the flip floppers with their own words

Sounds like the investigation into our intelligence agencies needs to go back quite a bit farther than originally thought.

We've got "leaks" trying to imply Iraq has attacked us clear back to at least OKC, let's get some people sworn in before an independent panel and find out the truth.
7 posted on 06/19/2003 6:29:37 AM PDT by steve50 (I don't know about being with "us", but I'm with the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad
Have you really read what Powell said?

Check this out:
Powell didn't say, as you imply "Iraq HAS ........ YADDA YADDA YADDA."

One example:

"...Second, as with biological weapons, Saddam Hussein has never accounted for vast amounts of chemical weaponry: 550 artillery shells with mustard, 30,000 empty munitions and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents....."

Second example:

Iraq declared 8500 liters of anthrax. But UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. If concentrated into this dry form, this amount would be enough to fill tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of teaspoons. And Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoonful of this deadly material. And that is my third point. And it is key. The Iraqis have never accounted for all of the biological weapons they admitted they had and we know they had.

Source: State Dept Web site:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm
8 posted on 06/19/2003 6:29:46 AM PDT by W04Man (Bush2004 Grassroots Campaign aka BushBot www.w-04.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad
The WMD's went somewhere. If your confidence level in Bush is this low, then go back into your cave. We will let you know when the storm has passed.
9 posted on 06/19/2003 6:30:40 AM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYC GOP Chick
* ping
10 posted on 06/19/2003 6:32:05 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (White Devils for Sharpton. We're bad. We're Nationwide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad
Oh, forgot to add. We have found evidence of his WMD program with the mobile Bio Trailers. We will find more evidence. I'm sure of it. Hold your horses while we continue to capture more of the bad guys.
11 posted on 06/19/2003 6:33:18 AM PDT by W04Man (Bush2004 Grassroots Campaign aka BushBot www.w-04.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
Using Democrats as credible sources! Pro-war freepers are becoming desperate!
12 posted on 06/19/2003 6:35:14 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: W04Man
That al-Tikrit guy captured yesterday was said to have "launch authority" for WMDs. He was an important capture, so maybe the Coalition will get alot of information out of him.
13 posted on 06/19/2003 6:37:47 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad
I concur. We elected this President because we wanted to wipe out the deceit and dishonesty of the Clinton years. Saying "they lied too" just reduces GWB to the disgusting level of those he's being compared to.

I want to know that GWB wouldn't intentionally lie to us. And, if he was given incorrect information purposely, those responsible should be handed over to Shiite courts.

14 posted on 06/19/2003 6:40:31 AM PDT by grania ("Won't get fooled again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad
I'd feel the same way you do if every security apparatus in the world basically endorsed the same outlook on Iraq:

They've produced them, bought them, deployed them against foreign enemies, and deployed them against domestic populations.

The above are facts that exists before war against Iraq was even contemplated. From there, intelligence gathers evidence and you, at some point, have to decide for yourself whether you need to wait for something approaching 100% certainty before you act.

I put myself in Mr. Bush's shoes and based on what information was avaialble to the press, I would have gone to war.

The fact is that most democrats in the Clinton administration felt there was sufficient evidence to go to war as well. What upsets me as a conservative is that had Gore won, you might have seen the same democrats urging Clinton to war, urging Gore to war. Why weren't they behind Mr. Bush? Politics.
15 posted on 06/19/2003 6:41:35 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: W04Man
Well, if Powell didn't imply it, why hold the vial up in the air for the whole world to see? Are these the games our Administration plays? Aren't we tired of that?
16 posted on 06/19/2003 6:49:30 AM PDT by homeschool_dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad
an = a (sorry for the bad grammar)

The faulty grammar is one thing...the faulty logic is something else.

Eventually you have to try to reason through the situation. Even if you don't trust W (and I certainly don't blame anyone for not trusting a politician) you have to reason whether Saddam was a real threat to us or not.

If he was a threat then it was the president's responsibility to remove that threat or at least neutralize it.

If you thing Saddam wasn't a threat...well, I don't know what to say to you about that one.

Think it through.

17 posted on 06/19/2003 6:54:11 AM PDT by evad (Lying..It's WHAT they do, it's ALL they do and they WON'T stop...EVER!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: grania
Saying "they lied too" just reduces GWB to the disgusting level of those he's being compared to.

Who in the Bush administration has said that?

18 posted on 06/19/2003 6:56:45 AM PDT by evad (Lying..It's WHAT they do, it's ALL they do and they WON'T stop...EVER!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad
You seem to fall into the camp that was more than willing to give inspectors months and years more, but are unwilling to give time to the coalition which has more than had it's plate full with crushing an opposing force and returning services to the people of Iraq. We are talking about a land mass that is as big as California, and the Iraqi Regime had 12 years to perfect their hiding of weapons. I should also mention all the missiles that have been found in vioation of their various UN resolutions.
19 posted on 06/19/2003 6:59:36 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad
Well, if Powell didn't imply it, why hold the vial up in the air for the whole world to see? Are these the games our Administration plays? Aren't we tired of that?

The ultimate question is: Are we going to act pre-emptively or post-operatively?

Are we going to react on an as-they-occur basis [Clinton era] or try to prevent future 9-11's at their sources[GWBush era]?
20 posted on 06/19/2003 7:01:09 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: evad
Me: Saying "they lied too" just reduces GWB to the disgusting level of those he's being compared to.

You: Who in the Bush administration has said that?

------------------

The Bush administration didn't. This article is using that argument by listing the WMD claims of prominent Dems. That argument is counterproductive to maintaining the respect this administration has earned.

21 posted on 06/19/2003 7:02:08 AM PDT by grania ("Won't get fooled again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
So are we saying that George Bush is at least as honest as Bill Clinton?
22 posted on 06/19/2003 7:02:58 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: evad
If you read my post, I never siad that I didn't think Hussein wasn't a threat. I never said anything about him at all. My point is that President Bush and others in his Daministration made some pretty wild claims in front of a world-wide venue, and put our national credibility on the line, and now can't begin to come close to matching those wild claims with anything more than a couple of old half-tracks in the desert? They were SO certain that they listed categorically all of the prohibited weapons that he had.. They showed pictures of facilities and missiles. They also put our bothers and sisters over there (and my old AF unit). Where I come from, if you make some wild a$$ claim, you'd better be able to back it up with something. Especially when the ones who stand to lose the most are our troops who are over there right now.
23 posted on 06/19/2003 7:06:09 AM PDT by homeschool_dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
Desperate? ROFLMAO! Have you seen the latest poll numbers for GW? The american people know the truth, and I'm simply posting the dims in thier own words. You can also throw many many countries that were/are sure that Iraq had a large WMD program throughout the 12 years that the UN diddled while Saddam schemed.
24 posted on 06/19/2003 7:09:02 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
In the Democrats own words, "Let's Move On".
25 posted on 06/19/2003 7:09:07 AM PDT by shiva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Hey, I'm all for pre-emptive strikes, and I only wish my old faithful F111A wasn't in the bone yard. I'd love to have seen my old aardvark come in low and fast - but what is there to come in low and fast on? I think we WERE mislead, and it disappoints me.
26 posted on 06/19/2003 7:10:27 AM PDT by homeschool_dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
Truth is not determined by polls. There was a time not so long ago when allegedly principled conservatives understood this and often criticized the "high poll rating" defense. No more.
27 posted on 06/19/2003 7:11:53 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I believe GW to be as honest a president as this nation has ever had. I know that Bill Clinton was one of the most dishonest presidents this country has ever had. Any more questions?
28 posted on 06/19/2003 7:12:40 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: shiva
No way! As long as the dims make this an issue, we can use their own BS against them. I love to skewer them at every turn. Amy more question?
29 posted on 06/19/2003 7:14:44 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
This was in another thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/930515/posts?page=21#21
We were told we were in imminent danger and that was why we had to go on the offense quickly.

Not quite...seems you have fallen for a Krugman line...I had a heck of a time finding the info again, but here is some info that was posted previously on FR about the "imminent threat":


I'm sure others have picked up on this, but in the off-hand chance they haven't, there's a major problem with Krugman's most recent column. He says:

"The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than Iran- contra."
I did some checking and found the text of the President's most recent State of the Union address. Here's the exact quote regarding the "imminent" threat:


"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"
Here, it's crystal clear that Bush is not making the claim that the threat was imminent. He's striking before the threat is imminent -- and that was the gamble Bush took. A strike against an imminent threat would not have generated the controversy the Iraq invasion generated.
At first I thought that Mr. French was making a mistake by limiting his search to this year’s State of the Union Address. So I did a Google search using the terms “Bush” “imminent” and “Iraq”. I did find news articles claiming Bush was saying the Iraqi threat was imminent. For example, one article referred to the State of the Union speech, while another referred to the October 7th address. But, as Mr. French pointed out, Bush didn’t say the Iraqi threat was imminent in the State of the Union. And Bush never used the term in the October 7th address. The same held true for Bush’s speech last year to the United Nations, his speech/press conference of March 6th, and his speech as the war was beginning. Either Bush didn’t use the word “imminent,” or he used it to argue that we should not wait until the threat is imminent.

Looks like media spin, not anything Bush specifically said. And it looks like Krugman’s quote problem continues…


Source

20 posted on 06/17/2003 2:14 PM EDT by ravingnutter

30 posted on 06/19/2003 7:14:54 AM PDT by eyespysomething (Breaking down the stereotypes of soccer moms everyday!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Prof Engineer
bump for later
31 posted on 06/19/2003 7:15:09 AM PDT by msdrby (I do believe the cheese slid off his cracker! - The Green Mile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad
Aren't we tired of that?

I guess not. Our outrage over disinformation seems dependent on source. Party over principle.

I wonder if we'll attack Britain for selling Iraq those WMD trailers in 87.
32 posted on 06/19/2003 7:16:52 AM PDT by steve50 (I don't know about being with "us", but I'm with the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
The truth is that the UN and various nations were/are sure that there were active WMD programs in Iraq for 12 years between Gulf 1 and 2. The question was always what to do about it. For 12 years Saddam thumbed his nose at the world, and we thankfully elected a president that was determined to rid us and the world of this very real threat post 9/11.
33 posted on 06/19/2003 7:20:01 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
"Using Democrats as credible sources! Pro-war freepers are becoming desperate!"

Men view it as pro-defending and protecting America from enemies both foreign and domestic.

Men of integrity take their oaths seriously.

Men of integrity are interested in protecting the weak --- unlike Clinton who USES women and children for his personal agenda.

As Karl Marx, and other cynical commie opportunists know, the anti-war crowd could never succeed without their flaked and formed, emotionally immature, feminized male and air-head female useful idiots backing them.

34 posted on 06/19/2003 7:22:33 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Marxist DemocRATS, Nader-Greens, and Religious KOOKS = a clear and present danger to our Freedoms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: grania
I see where you are coming from but I just don't see how any writer of an article or comparisons to a bunch of known liers reduces W in any way...and certainly not to a "disgusting level".

To me the only thing that can reduce W to the disgusting level of a Daschle, et al is if he or his administration makes claims that "they lied too".

35 posted on 06/19/2003 7:25:10 AM PDT by evad (Lying..It's WHAT they do, it's ALL they do and they WON'T stop...EVER!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad
I think we WERE mislead, and it disappoints me.


Well disappointments are a fact of life. You take the best intelligence data you can get and make an assessment. I think the President and his administration did that. I don't think they deliberately lied about what they were given. The data may have been faulty but if so it's been that way for years it seems as previous administrations have believed the WMD issue.

Now you have a nice one..... It's a beautiful day to be alive.


36 posted on 06/19/2003 7:26:04 AM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
"Using Democrats as credible sources! Pro-war freepers are becoming desperate!"

Men view it as pro-defending and protecting America from enemies both foreign and domestic.

Men of integrity take their oaths seriously.

Men of integrity are interested in protecting the weak --- unlike Clinton who USES women and children for his personal agenda.

As Karl Marx, and other cynical commie opportunists know, the anti-war crowd could never succeed without their flaked and formed, emotionally immature, feminized male and air-head female useful idiots backing them.

37 posted on 06/19/2003 7:27:57 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Marxist DemocRATS, Nader-Greens, and Religious KOOKS = a clear and present danger to our Freedoms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: deport
Thanks! And that's something we CAN wholeheartedly agree on - it IS a beautiful day to be alive, and there is nowhere else I'd rather be than right here. Regardless of what's gone on, our President still has my support.
38 posted on 06/19/2003 7:31:06 AM PDT by homeschool_dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
Since we haven't announced we found WMD in Iraq yet,
39 posted on 06/19/2003 7:33:50 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad
Where I come from, if you make some wild a$$ claim, you'd better be able to back it up with something.

Well, give it time. They've been developing and hiding this stuff for 12+ years and it might take a while to find it.

I personally am willing to give a man of integrity like Bush a bit of a benefit of the doubt, even if he is a politician. I also don't think that a man like Powell would have been a part of any conspiracy to mislead the American people as is alleged by known liers like Kerry.

I hope that the proof that you are looking for comes soon. In the meantime, I feel better knowing that this particular clear and present danger has been removed.

40 posted on 06/19/2003 7:34:54 AM PDT by evad (Lying..It's WHAT they do, it's ALL they do and they WON'T stop...EVER!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad
But to me, just an average joe in Wisconsin, I honestly expected them to be able to produce SOMETHING in the way of evidence,

Even if such a move hinders the investigations and causes some weapons to go undetected ?

Do you require your local police department to release its information regarding ongoing investigations ?

41 posted on 06/19/2003 7:40:19 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: steve50
Actually, if he didn't have the weapons, materials, means, then he did an amazing snow job on the entire world, including the whole UN security council.

Of course, they could have been lying, because the UN made quite a bit of money off the oil-for-palaces program. Surely they didn't want that discontinued. Of course, that may be why the protested the actions of the US also. I tend to believe our politicians more than other countries. Plus, we don't see Pootin, Chretin, Chirac and Schroder saying that Bush lied. Don't you think they would. This is all an issue created by the Dems because none of the other gazillion ones stuck.

Now, if you want to complain about Bush's spending - I'll complain with you. But this, nah.


From a Canadian gov. website:
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/middle_east/iraq_weapons-en.asp

< snip >
According to UNSCOM, Iraq began its programs to develop biological and chemical weapons in the early 1970s. In 1995, following the defection of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, inspectors gained greater knowledge about Iraq's biological weapons program, which was far more extensive than previously thought. Activities related to BW are the most difficult to detect because they require much more limited infrastructure. UNSCOM destroyed Iraq's declared BW facilities and set up monitoring of dual-use equipment at other facilities. However, UN inspectors were unable to determine the full extent of the Iraqi program prior to their departure in 1998.

UNSCOM also uncovered a vast Iraqi chemical weapons program. Between 1991 and 1998, it supervised the destruction of over 40,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions and 411 tonnes of bulk CW agents. However, UNSCOM reported that the destruction of about 2,000 unfilled munitions was uncertain, that the destruction by melting of 15,000 rockets was not verifiable, and that 500 mustard-filled shells remained unaccounted for. In addition, the unilateral destruction in 1991 by Iraq of 242 tonnes of precursors for VX production was only partly accounted for. While Iraq claimed that it never turned VX into a weapon, in 1998 degradation products of VX were found by a U.S. laboratory on missile warhead remnants.

< snip >

Before 1991, Iraq was also actively purchasing, developing and producing long-range missiles that could have been used to deliver its chemical and biological weapons, as well as future nuclear weapons. UNSCOM destroyed Iraq's declared stock of ballistic missiles, however discrepancies and the absence of inspectors for stocks declared destroyed by Iraq indicate that Iraq may have retained a small number of long-range missiles (up to 650 km), perhaps as many as a dozen.

< snip >



The evidence is out there, and anyone who says different is as foolish as someone saying we needed the permission of the UN to do what we did.


42 posted on 06/19/2003 7:42:32 AM PDT by eyespysomething (Breaking down the stereotypes of soccer moms everyday!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: evad
They've been developing and hiding this stuff for 12+ years and it might take a while to find it.

Right.   If it can be determined that a significant number of people in these mass graves might have come from one particular locale (or perhaps several), I'd be sorely tempted to consider whether WMDs might be hidden near (or under) where those folks used to live.

HF

43 posted on 06/19/2003 7:55:44 AM PDT by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner; All
Does anyone have secondary verification of these quotes? I want to use them to refute an argument on another message board, but I need verification.
44 posted on 06/19/2003 7:55:54 AM PDT by Rebelbase (........The bartender yells, "hey get out of here, we don't serve breakfast!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething
You claim the UN had ulterior motives for making WMD restrictions continue, then quote them as a source for backing up US intelligence?

45 posted on 06/19/2003 7:59:58 AM PDT by steve50 (I don't know about being with "us", but I'm with the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: steve50
I guess what I am claiming is anyone could be lying about the WMD, for a myriad of reasons.

But are they? Maybe the UN just hoped the inspections would continue ad infinitum. "well, we think he has them, but containment is working so well."

46 posted on 06/19/2003 8:04:52 AM PDT by eyespysomething (Breaking down the stereotypes of soccer moms everyday!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: steve50
I guess if I am pinned down on it, I am as cynical as many about politicians. But I don't see what Bush would have gained by lying, knowing he would have to produce evidence once the war was over. Do you?
47 posted on 06/19/2003 8:08:32 AM PDT by eyespysomething (Breaking down the stereotypes of soccer moms everyday!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
I've been a Clinton hater on this forum since you were a newbie. Your attacks on Clinton are persuasive. Why aren't you attacking the author of this piece since he is citing Clinton as a credible source?
48 posted on 06/19/2003 8:09:14 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething
Dubya didn't lie, he hoped. He twisted dubious evidence expecting to find WMD once the troops went in.
49 posted on 06/19/2003 8:10:01 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
Come, come, come now, this does not count, they are democracts, thats OK.
50 posted on 06/19/2003 8:16:11 AM PDT by gulfcoast6 (Swallowing angry words is much better than having to eat them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson