Okay, freeptard trolls? Brave enough to answer a question?

Here it is;

"If nobody (especially your Fearless Leader) knew that there were no WMDs (especially nuclear and bioweapons) in Iraq before the war, how is it that we here on DU did know?"

Well?

:rofl:

And boasting of their new weapons capabilities?

Hahaha!

I'm ready for them if they try THAT red herring, my friend.

paired him up with some bearded Nazi guy for a little ambush-style debate.

The Nazi guy, in all relative seriousness, with a straight face, informed America that Rumsfeld did not lie, and that the WMDs had been moved to Syria. No evidence, of course -- just a little song for the Freeptards to sing at the dinner table.

that turned the weapons into piles of sand. They're still there!

:beer: (Kool Aide)

:rofl:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-ciaflights27apr27,1,5263928.story?coll=la-headlines-world





Well what do you know!!! We extradite terrorists TO SYRIA!!! FOR TORTURE!!!! TO FIND OUT WHERE THE WMD ARE!!!!

Just how damn stupid can Bush supporters be?

Come on freepers! Explain THIS ONE!!!

away.

Want proof?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3394174

The Dullards may be figuring it out since bush's poll numbers are huntin' for 20%.

to 'find' later. It doesn't add up. I was expecting them to 'find' some.

...in a "friendly fire" accident. I never followed that up.

Is this what you're saying? And it's common knowledge this was attempted??

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0413-02.htm

There were CIA sources reporting it too.


and another upon edit.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/06/266752.shtml

the WMD's was truly expected if all else failed.

Wait, what? Ray who? Oh.

Never mind, he never said that.
:evilgrin:

West, goddammit, West!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What? WHAT? Goddammit, I meant EAST, you jackasses!

"We sent those troops into Iraq with NBC warfare capabilities, do you think we would have burdened them with that equipment if we didn't think there were WMDs?"

Heard Dumsfeld and Bolton throw that one out this past week. Pretty lame straw man.

with that equipment?

...given as an answer. So that's why they didn't have any body armor, or armor for their Humvees and Bradleys. They didn't need them because donny-boy was convinced the Iraqis didn't have any guns or bullets.
:eyes:

It was obvious window-dressing - almost comedic.

Clinton/Gore both felt there were WMD. Why?
Both wanted Saddam gone and saw him as a threat. Again - Why?

The conclusion could be ugly - that there are others beyond elected officials pulling some puppet strings. While we fret over bush and such they don't care who is in office because when it is all said and done they will have their way. Whoever 'they' are.

bush and crew were wrong - but if they had been right we would have though they planted them anyway.

kill any Iraqi children because of his "beliefs"! And neither did Clinton and Gore (Except for the sanctions and the occasional bombings :eyes: ). No, it is one thing to think that something may be true and not act because of lack of proof; it is something else to hold a belief and then kill thousands of folks because you "belief" MIGHT be true...

WHY did they think he had them?

what Hans Blix and other UN weapons inspectors were saying. That Saddam had dismantled the WMD's as he was ordered to by the UN, all they needed was more time to confirm. The whole issue came down to Saddam claiming to still have them, because he thought if Iran figured out he had dismantled, they would invade again. Easy pickings. The reason we sold Saddam those WMD's in the first place, was to keep Iran from taking over Iraq and creating a Shiite alliance between 2 countries. Now, with the brilliant strategy employed by the Bush administration we have facilitated that for Iran at no cost. So, what we've managed to do is force ourselves into a conflict with Iran, because if we don't initiate a regime change then it will come full circle and we will have caused the very thing that we initially sold Saddam WMD's to avoid. Good planning :eyes:

and Rummy sold them to Saddam in the 80's.

Saddam threw the U.N. inspectors out in 1998 when the inspectors wanted to check his palaces for WMD's. That caused countries to wonder if he really was hiding stuff, or, did Saddam not want the enemy knowing too much about him and his whereabouts since he knew he was on a hit list? So, there were no inspectors in there for about 4 years. No one "knew" if he had them or not. Bush's problem was the fact he told the inspectors to leave after 3 month so he could invade even tho they were to be there longer and had not found ANY evidence that Saddam had WMD's.

and some saber rattling.

The point is - Gore, Clinton, Dems, all thought saddam was a threat and had WMD. Why??

To me it was someone deeper pulling strings.

They take your post, twist your words around, and make fun of it on their site. They ban anyone who tries to have a sensible debate with them and they won't dare come over here for sensible debate because they will do something stupid to get them banned. They then wave that banning like a flag of honor. Ignore them. They live to be seen.

And maybe made at least a few of the actually angry.

And I think I have proven here that, though I know they have accounts here, that they are simply too cowardly to post here with a direct answer to the question!

Seems I haven't annoyed them this time...

Not a peep over there.

You just didn't see the proof (other than the * admin constantly saying it from the pulpit).

she said that the fact that they could not find any traces of WMD proved Iraq had them. I asked her how she figured that. She said it was because those chemicals leave a trace that cannot be fully cleaned up, so they MUST have moved them to Syria. :boggle:

It was then that I realized that rationality was the wrong approach to use with these people.

her magic to hide the evidence couldn't she?"

say something so unbelievably f*cking stupid that the other person is in stunned silence and you win.

;)

Freeps act like no one had google back then- the facts were out there for anyone willing to look.

Everybody knows that reality has a left-wing bias. ;)

They were too busy today live blogging the Kentucky Derby (208 posts) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1627849/posts
and tonight's NASCAR race (691 posts!). http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1626254/posts

they moved them to Syria, or Iran, whichever proves to be more politically useful

no one ever said there were WMD's. you're just making that up. We attacked Iraq because they attacked us on 9-11/Saddam was evil/they hated us for our freedom/we wanted to give them the gift of democracy.

you didn't know WMD's weren't there, you just hated America.

pretty much touches on all the insanity.

Andorra? Belize? Swaziland?

Bushmen kicking dung balls like hackysacks?

--I notice chirping crickets in reply to your question.
as mentioned upthread, they have "more important" things to "think" about, like Kentucky Derby and NASCAR. I am always astounded by the lack of threads on any real news over at their stone-age site. I also think their real "followers" number somewhere around 15. I know for a fact of one who is a masquerading DUer :evilgrin:

And not one of them is brave enough to post a reply here.

(Oops)

:hi:

During the runup to Bush's War, I read what Scott Ritter had to say. I read Hans Blix. I studied Iraq's history following the Other Bush's War. I took into consideration the incompetence, corruption and dishonesty of this administration, including the fact that everything (everything) that Dick Cheney says turns out to be false.

My conclusions were: (1) There are no WMD; (2) We are being lied to.

Nothing I have seen or heard since has changed these conclusions. It bothers me to constantly hear that "nobody knew he didn't have WMD". I'm tired of yelling at the TV, "I DID!"

If Bush knew Iraq had WMDs, why were people in his administration saying the invasion would be a cakewalk? An invasion of a country with WMDs would never be a cakewalk and would never be treated as such.

Yet, we go in with too few troops and plan for no major difficulties. Would we really be doing that if we thought there were WMDs? Even Rummy isn't that stupid.

Mz Pip
:dem:

If they ever answer the OP, we should make sure they answer this one too.

But those crickets are getting louder in here.

They burried them under all of those miles of desert. Burying them perfectly preserves them just like those buried fighter jets. Yup, you can dig up one O them jets and just take off and stuff and junk. Commie.

Hey, a guy can dream can't he?

In all honesty though. I think even a good amount of the freepers, except for the extreme hardcore nit-wits among them (yes that's redundant, I know), are having a hard time themselves defending the WMD claim at this point.

Of course the real "cream of the crap" over there, are still clinging to that one little dingle-berry of "just because they weren't found doesn't mean there weren't any. They could have been buried in the sand or shipped off to Syria for all you know." Which is sad in itself, because it simply shows a complete inability to accept the facts, but hey--it also offers a bit of insight into the minds of the thirty percent that still approve of the chimp. What can you say but "loser" to that group? It's pathetic. To actually cling to "it was true" or "it may have been true" is just burying your head in the sand.

Now if they want to go down the road of "it was reasonable to believe it at the time" I can actually understand that. It's a weak fucking cop-out, and I have no respect for anyone that can possibly stay so ill-informed, but I can understand it. I mean come on....the shrubs own stooge inspector reported back no WMD evidence, and furthermore, El-Baradei sat next to Powell at the UN and stated the same; no evidence Saddam had reconstituted Nuke activity, since 1998. Yet we invaded, and the freepers and the corpora-media rah-rahed it, after the evidence to the contrary was presented to the world.

And if you still support it....get thee to a recruiter, or Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

...and they assume that the military is still the military they remember.

The rest are fucking cowards who are happy to send others off to die in their place. The veterans among them don't seem to realize that they are being played. They give credibility to what is at its core an anti-American movement.

that we bombed them all, so none of them were left to be found! lol

Note that NONE of them have posted here?

This is all I hear from that side of the aisle;

the RWers have been able to (successfully for the most part) spin the whole "We're invading because Iraq has metric tons of WMDs and can strike at any moment!" meme into "We're trying to remove the incarnation of Hitler and save all those poor oppressed Iraqis that have no democratic freedom!"

I live in a military town, and people here talk about the war now as if WMDs NEVER had anything to do with it!! Here it's all 'spreading freedom' or 'preventing another terror attack on our shores!'

You even got the spelling right!

:rofl:

Saddam. He was a WMD. So, by their logic, isn't Bush and the whole BFEE a WMD?

:rofl:

We are safer with Saddam out of power and on trial. Iraq did have wmd (we sold them the stuff. honest). We were 96% sure that this shit wasn't still effective, but in a post 9-11-01 world, we must have 100% certainty. Go ask any Dem Senator, except maybe Russ Feingold or Ted Kennedy.