Skip to comments.
WMD: Blair was right
The Online Sun (United Kingdom) ^
| Thursday, October 2, 2003
| TREVOR KAVANAGH
Posted on 10/02/2003 8:01:55 PM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-90 next last
To: Coop
Read the entire article, not just the one line that sends you into orgasm.You mean like those including yourself over the impending Kay report? How shattering it must be for the truth of no evidence to smack you in the face instead of what the administration told you was the truth
41
posted on
10/03/2003 6:17:15 AM PDT
by
billbears
(Deo Vindice)
To: TruthShallSetYouFree
Local and national media outlets need to see this...pronto!
42
posted on
10/03/2003 6:23:09 AM PDT
by
ItsOurTimeNow
("The board is set. The pieces are moving. We come to it at last...the Great Battle of our time.")
To: Ragtime Cowgirl
The President on TV with Bernard Kerik.New Yawk's finest!
Now we drop our WMD on Iraq.
43
posted on
10/03/2003 6:25:28 AM PDT
by
facedown
(Armed in the Heartland)
To: TruthShallSetYouFree
bump for later reading
44
posted on
10/03/2003 6:25:50 AM PDT
by
boxerblues
(God Bless the 101st, stay safe, stay armed and watch your backs)
To: billbears
How shattering it must be for the truth of no evidence Not even Terry McAuliffe could have read the above article and then stated something so ridiculous.
Boys and girls, this is what is known as a LIE.
45
posted on
10/03/2003 6:27:22 AM PDT
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: rintense
Since Karen Hughes and Ari Fleischer left, the media team has been like a goat rodeo.LOL - (do they actually have those?)
46
posted on
10/03/2003 6:27:53 AM PDT
by
jla
(http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com)
To: TruthShallSetYouFree
GREAT POST
47
posted on
10/03/2003 6:31:17 AM PDT
by
The Wizard
(Saddamocrats are enemies of America, treasonous everytime they speak)
To: Coop
Boys and girls, this is what is known as a LIE.How is it a lie? Kay produced no evidence. Do you know something the rest of us don't sunshine?
48
posted on
10/03/2003 6:39:17 AM PDT
by
billbears
(Deo Vindice)
To: billbears
Testimony under oath is evidence.
49
posted on
10/03/2003 7:12:24 AM PDT
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: VRWC_minion
As if that's stopped others from committing perjury in past administration scandals
50
posted on
10/03/2003 7:18:51 AM PDT
by
billbears
(Deo Vindice)
To: billbears
Just so I don't have to repeat your work, please post a thread or website that has a succinct listing of the administration's lies, as you see them, concerning Iraq's WMD. Thanks.
To: billbears
How is it a lie? Kay produced no evidence. He produced a TON of evidence. No matter how many times you dismiss it.
52
posted on
10/03/2003 7:40:51 AM PDT
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: secretagent
I think pratically every Kay thread defending a statement of 'no found WMD' admission as actual admission of WMDs existing should work. And lie is too strong of a word IMO. I don't think Bush lied. I think he restated what he was told.
53
posted on
10/03/2003 7:43:07 AM PDT
by
billbears
(Deo Vindice)
To: Coop
He produced a TON of evidence. Kay was not expected to produce any solid evidence that chemical or biological weapons had been found, sources have said previously
Must have been in gaseous form then huh? Kay admitted to have found nothing
54
posted on
10/03/2003 7:48:45 AM PDT
by
billbears
(Deo Vindice)
To: billbears
Kay claims to have evidence of attempts to acquire missile technology from N. Korea. We have no way to disprove that Kay has such evidence.
To: billbears
56
posted on
10/03/2003 8:00:21 AM PDT
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Bump!
To: Coop
From your link:
We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone.
No stocks, no evidence. We're not talking about 'programs'. That line just doesn't fly. Either WMDs existed or they didn't. And perhaps if you'd quit listening to what the RNC and President wants you to use as talking points, you'd see the evidence just isn't what it was promised to be
58
posted on
10/03/2003 8:14:19 AM PDT
by
billbears
(Deo Vindice)
To: billbears
Either WMDs existed And they did. Period.
They were used at Halabja, used in the Iran/Iraq war, and their destruction during Desert Storm apparently led to illness among our soldiers. There's a even a nice vial of BW agent at a scientist's home for you, although of course you'll claim it was only for humanitarian purposes.
I admire your pathetic perseverance. Keep on trying!
59
posted on
10/03/2003 8:20:02 AM PDT
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: Coop
They were used at Halabja, used in the Iran/Iraq warOf course they were. The US at the time turned its eye (a more deadly form the lesser of two evils crap you CINOs always preach) back in the 1980s, I've never denied this. However in the 1980s, the 1990s, and even today Iraq did not present a direct and immediate threat to the borders of this nation. But as I said, you keep it up, we need a few blind Republicans to parrot the blind loyal Democrats from a few years back I imagine you so gleefully laughed at.
The WMDs were not there, Kay as much said so in his report. But now his report wasn't really, really finished was it? yeah that's the ticket...
60
posted on
10/03/2003 8:33:03 AM PDT
by
billbears
(Deo Vindice)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-90 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson