Spot the liberal bias!

[Racingwolf]

Originally posted by otter
Anyone who still supports John Kerry has serious emotional issues that are clouding their judgement. John Kerry is obviously unfit to run this country - he's childish, he's petty, he's a liar, he's a cheat, he has no integrity, and he's a pet for rich women. If this is the best the Dems can do for a Presidential candidate, ya'll have some serious problems.///thx for the siggy line, vrai.

Wow, that's amazing calling Kerry a liar and petty and no integrity. I guess you support Bush because god knows he didnt lie about Iraq or his military duty. I am amazed that after all that crap Bush told about Iraq having WMD that you would call Kerry a liar!!! Now Iran is mad and is thinking about having a "pre-emtive strike" against us in case we decide to attack their Nuclear facilities. Bush and his policies are going to cause us to fight every damn country around before too long.

Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.

 

[Racingwolf]

Originally posted by SamSpade
They're not all republicans. And you've got to be kidding. Someone comes along and questions them, and immediately they're lying?

Actually, the guy in the water is probably the guy LEAST likely to know if they were under fire or not.

Facts dont lie, Swift boat guys getting busted

 

[Larry Gude]

Wolf...

Bush because god knows he didnt lie about Iraq

Would you PLEASE read this:

http://www.detnews.com/2002/nation/0210/11/nation-609425.htm

It's what John Kerry voted FOR and says he would vote for again.

Or, are you calling Kerry a liar as well?

Bush and his policies are going to cause us to fight every damn country around before too long.

Shall we wait until Iran has a fully functioning nuke weapon program? Then, you won't be able to say W is a liar when a million or so US citizens instantly reach 3,000 degrees F.

Then, you can accuse him of waiting to long, yes?

 

[Larry Gude]

Swift boat guys busted?

...I read the whole thing, twice.

I am missing the part that says they are lying about their accusations about the Senator.

 

[Tonio]

 

[ylexot]

Originally posted by Racingwolf
I guess you support Bush because god knows he didnt lie about Iraq or his military duty.

Bush didn't lie about WMDs, he was just wrong. There's a difference. Oh, and BTW, Kerry said the same thing. I have no idea what you're talking about with Bush's military duty...

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by ylexot
Bush didn't lie about WMDs, he was just wrong.

I don't believe Bush was even wrong on this. If he was, that means Clinton was wrong, Kerry was wrong, the Brits were wrong, and the UN was wrong.

Why did Clinton drop missiles on Baghdad? Why were UN inspectors there in the first place? Why did the Senate vote for use of force in the IWR? Why did Great Britain tell us that Saddam had WMD? How did all those Kurds die?

Saddam certainly had WMD and was developing nukes. If you want to bust on Bush about something, let's talk about how he waited and waited, making public threats and what-have-you for months. Plenty of time for Saddam to move or dismantle his toys. I believe firmly that, had Bush acted immediately instead of futzing around with those UN #######, we would have had Saddams' goodies in our hands - proof, evidence, case closed.

If I wanted to create a plausible Bush conspiracy, I'd say that he knew damn well the UN, French, Russians and Germans and a host of other nations were in illegal financial bed with Iraq and in direct conflict with the UN resolutions. So Bush threatened long enough and let them stall long enough for them to tidy up their affairs before #### hit the fan. It's all coming out in little bits and pieces, how dirty the UN and dissenting members were in this whole thing. I say Bush allowed them to cover their asses, and now he's paying the price.

 

[Ken King]

Bush neither lied nor was he wrong about Iraq and WMD.

No WMD? WMDs are more then just the munitions themselves they also include relevant documents and technology dealing with creating them. We know he had them and have found such documents, we have found mortar and other projectiles either containing CW agents or capable of containing them, and we had previously (via inspectors) observed his destruction of some of the material. What didn’t happen was verification that the destruction of “all” these weapons had taken place as required by the UN Resolutions. Not to mention that from November of 2002 until the date of attack Iraq had plenty of opportunity to hide or remove these types of weapons.