Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
10 22, 24, 07:25:18:PM

Login with username and password


Biden is like the alcoholic stealing our milk money
to buy drinks for strangers at the local Bar.



Search:     Advanced search
2714707 Posts in 303893 Topics by 309 Members
Latest Member: Final_Boss
* Website Home Help Login Register
 |  All Boards  |  Current Events  |  Topic: NO. 1 RESPONSIBILITY OF A PRESIDENT IS SECURITY, R. PAUL HASN'T A CLUE 0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2  Print
Author Topic: NO. 1 RESPONSIBILITY OF A PRESIDENT IS SECURITY, R. PAUL HASN'T A CLUE  (Read 270 times)
mudslinger
Sr. Member

Posts: 35848

JESUS , MARY, JOSEPH , GOD HELP THIS COUNTRY


« Reply #12 on: 12 15, 11, 07:42:06:AM » Reply

You are right hooty you dumbshit through your own admission, intelligence doesn't vary from President to President, that is why Bush used the intelligence gathered by the Clinton Administration, boy are you ever a stupid person.
hoosier_daddy
Don't hate me because I am beautiful
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!

how cool that chemtrail can change profiles


« Reply #13 on: 12 15, 11, 08:36:06:AM » Reply

we didn't sell any wmds to iraq, dumbfuck.  and neither did russia.  of course hussein had chemical weapons, he used them against the iranians and the kurds in the 80's when reagan was president and hussein was our number one buddy in the region.  chemical weapons are really nothing more than bug spray, only times 100.  any country can make it, if they want to break international law and risk sanctions.  and chemical weapons are not really any more lethal than conventional weapons, but they are banned because they cause such gruesome and painful deaths, not because they are so effective.  but chemical weapons manfuctured in the 80's and maybe early 90's would not be viable a decade later.  it would be more dangerous for those trying to use them than for the enemy.  what part of that don't you understand?  ten year old caches of chemical weapons are not weaponized, they are just dangerous to whoever is around them.  and he never had biological weapons to any weaponized state, even we do not have that capacity right now.  and we know he did not have nuclear programs because that creates isotopes that are released into the atmosphere and can be detected....the whole idea that hussein was so dangerous that only an all out invasion and occupation could stop him is totally preposterous.  he was not any more dangerous than milosevic, and clinton took him out and put him on trial before the world court WITHOUT LOSING ONE SOLDIER IN COMBAT....
Oz
Sr. Member

Posts: 27517


« Reply #14 on: 12 15, 11, 09:30:11:AM » Reply

Somehow you keep ignoring the FACTS that Scott Ritter and UNSCOM,  El Bardi and the IAEA and Hanx Blix and UNMOVIC had all inspected Iraq and said, loud and clear, there were NO WMD.
 
The IAEA had inspected every 6 months, just like they do anyplace that has nuclear materials, to keep it safe, and certified Iraq had NO NUKES. (No "mushroom clouds.")
 
NO WMD before the war.  None.
 
And in 2001, Condoleeza Rice and General Colin Powell said Iraq had NO WMD and WAS NOT A THREAT:
 
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/gries/howbushoperates/powell-no-wmd.htm
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pages: 1 2  Print 
 |  All Boards  |  Current Events  |  Topic: NO. 1 RESPONSIBILITY OF A PRESIDENT IS SECURITY, R. PAUL HASN'T A CLUE
Jump to:  

AesopsRetreat Links


AesopsRetreat
YouTube Channel



Rules For Radicals.



2nd Amendment Source



5 minute Education




Join Me at KIVA
My Kiva Stats





Truth About
Slaves and Indians




r/K Theory




White Privilege




Conservatives:
What Do We Believe


Part 1:
Small Govt & Free Enterprise

Part 2:

The Problem with Elitism

Part 3:
Wealth Creation

Part 4:
Natural Law



Global Warming Scam


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP © AesopsRetreat
Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.162 seconds with 28 queries.