Osama bin Laden Is Alive And Well...So What?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
No, it's more like because they are liars, like their president before them.

He's still got the record for the most impeached, indicted, and convicted administration ever.

Why should I believe anything one of them says?

I believe that you are seriously mistaken. What/who are your sources for that? Hannity?

So lying about WMD is ok?

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Is that like lying about WMD?

What/who are your sources for that? Hannity?

I dunno. They all said Saddam had them in 1998.

What happened?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
I dunno. They all said Saddam had them in 1998.

What happened?

You can do better than that!

[Warham]

Well, what's your answer for that one? Let's start with the basics and work forward.

Did they lie or were they telling the truth?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
Well, what's your answer for that one? Let's start with the basics and work forward.

Did they lie or were they telling the truth?

You keep wanting to go back several years to cover for Bush. You are desperate to cover for him. He's going to keep you safe from the mean terrorists that hate our freedom.

Condi and Colin both made statements in 2001 about the state of Saddam's arsenal.

Colin - 24 February 2001 - Cairo, Egypt
"He (Saddam) with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." Here: http://telaviv.usembassy.gov/publish...y/me0224b.html


Rice - 29 July 2001- CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer
"He (Saddam) does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." Here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
You keep wanting to go back several years to cover for Bush. You are desperate to cover for him. He's going to keep you safe from the mean terrorists that hate our freedom.

Condi and Colin both made statements in 2001 about the state of Saddam's arsenal.

Colin - 24 February 2001 - Cairo, Egypt
"He (Saddam) with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." Here: http://telaviv.usembassy.gov/publish...y/me0224b.html


Rice - 29 July 2001- CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer
"He (Saddam) does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." Here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html

Nothing but net.

Go ahead, WarBOT. Give your pathetic retort to THESE FACTUAL statements by your own administration, months before we were HIT


Tell me again why we occupy Iraq?????????????????


dumbass

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Warham
No, it's more like because they are liars, like their president before them.

He's still got the record for the most impeached, indicted, and convicted administration ever.

Why should I believe anything one of them says?

So all the people that that say bad things about Dubya are liars? What exactly are these liars lying about ? A record deficit? A war with no end in sight? What are these lies?

By the way Britney, you really need to lose some weight.

" Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens." - Britney Spears, CNN, Sept. 3, 2003

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Nothing but net.

Thanks man!

Hey blueturk - Love the Brittney quote!

[Warham]

I asked you if Clinton and his admin were lying about the WMDs.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
I asked you if Clinton and his admin were lying about the WMDs.

Did you?

And Clinton matters now because?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Clinton's only tax plan was to raise taxes.

Bush was right about that one.

You mean like when Reagan raised taxes?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
Clinton paid no attention to terrorism.

What exactly are you basing this on, what ever the right disinformation "news" sites insert in your ass, finger-puppet?

Try reading the "9/11 Report," in fact Clinton was quite concerned, and intervened personally in meetings on terrorism, unlike his successor...

You can start here:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec4.pdf

More of the 9-11 attacks should be on his sholders because he did not have proper intelligence of the attack.

Why would he have "intelligence?" He wasn't President when it happened...

Speaking of intelligence though:

Also when Clinton was finishing his presidency the stock market started to turn down and jobs started being outsourced at an alarming rate. The next president republican or democrat will have it worse as the market place drives companies to use off shore labor to remain competitive in the global marketplace.

So, what did Bush do about this? --other than to cut taxes at a very small rate for the middle classes, while giving enormous subsidies to corporations and the rich, to cuntinue their "outsourcing?"

[blueturk]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Did you?

And Clinton matters now because?

Because Warham has no point to make, and thus can only repeat his Clinton mantra over and over in a futile attempt to forget what a fuck-up his leader is....