• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Saddam and Osama: The New Revelations

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Southdakotahunter said:
trying to become a pro like Dis Fonda on this cut and paste thing, cant get a hold of it!

Keep practicing. You'll get the hang of quoting. You need to have the word "quote" inside a bracket ([]) at the start of what you want to quote, then the word "/quote" inside a bracket ([]) at the end.

Anyway, what i said is bush dont want their oil! DAAA You said bush wanted the war because he wanted their oil. If we had their oil, we would be paying $20, not the $70 his pals are getting rich on.

I never said he did want their oil. But he's been bought and paid for by the oil companies for years. The idea of getting their hands on that oil surely encouraged them to encourage him to go into Iraq. Remember the secret meeting Cheney had early in the Administration with oil execs? They've refused even court orders to release the minutes of that meeting. Did you see how much money Chency made last year? He and Halliburton are getting rich on the bodies of the dead in Iraq.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Disagreeable said:
But he's been bought and paid for by the oil companies for years.
Prove it.

The idea of getting their hands on that oil surely encouraged them to encourage him to go into Iraq.
Why? If they really wanted Iraqi oil, all they had to do is make payoffs to the UN and Saddam through the 'Oil for Food' program. That would have been the cheapest way to get the oil. He was selling the stuff under market price and just sticking it in his pocket.

Did you see how much money Cheney made last year?
I suppose you meant Cheney instead of Chency, right? I corrected the spelling for you. :lol: I never saw that. But I'm sure it was too much. I think we'd be much better off with a minimum wage type VP.

Or maybe one of the evacuees from New Orleans? They need jobs, don't they? How about old LaCedric Moovafoomba? He ain't never even filed a 1040 in his whole life, 'cause he ain't never made any money 'cept selling crack, hot homegirls and boosted cd players. Certainly no ties to corporate greed. Sounds like a good choice to me.

He and Halliburton are getting rich on the bodies of the dead in Iraq.
Question for you, dis. Who owns more Halliburton stock? Dick Cheney or Ladybird Johnson? And would you say that Ladybird has gotten rich off of our dead soldiers in Iraq and Vietnam, both?
 

Cal

Well-known member
If Bush had proof Saddam had WMDs he would go on television and present that proof to the American people. He hasn't done that. At this point, I don't think it makes a bit of difference. The American people have seen that the Emperor has no clothes and it's going to be very, very hard to convince them now that Bush is an honest, trustworthy man.

Keep drinking the kool-aid, Dis. It's too much fun listening to the Saddam cheerleaders reassure themselves, while evidence to the contrary keeps building. It should be real helpful :roll: to the Dems to pooh pooh this evidence as we get closer to elections.
 

Southdakotahunter

Well-known member
Yes, he said that. But he lies. Why would you believe anything he says? We didn't go into Iraq because there were terrorists there. There weren't. We didn't go into Iraq to free the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator. We went into Iraq because George W. Bush wanted to get Saddam. That we could also get their oil supplies for this country was another plus. The problem with the scheme is their total incompetence and refusal to listen to professional soldiers who told them it would take more resources than they wanted to commit.


Well Dis Fonda, this is where you said BUSH wanted the oil. Now i hear Iran this morning is saying we should be paying over $100 a barrel. I think bush and his pals are grinning ear to ear on that.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Cal said:
If Bush had proof Saddam had WMDs he would go on television and present that proof to the American people. He hasn't done that. At this point, I don't think it makes a bit of difference. The American people have seen that the Emperor has no clothes and it's going to be very, very hard to convince them now that Bush is an honest, trustworthy man.

Keep drinking the kool-aid, Dis. It's too much fun listening to the Saddam cheerleaders reassure themselves, while evidence to the contrary keeps building. It should be real helpful :roll: to the Dems to pooh pooh this evidence as we get closer to elections.

I'm looking at facts, government reports, news reports. They all tell us that Saddam had no WMDs. Sattelite imaging before the invasion of Iraq showed one (1) possible terrorist training camp in Iraq. It was in the Kurdish region, protected by the no fly zone.

So keep rolling your eyes and pretending you've got the facts. There were no WMDs. I hope the dems will keep looking at the evidence and encourge their consititutants to look at it, too. Because it shows there were no WMDs. Bush didn't say Saddam wanted WMDs, he didn't say he used to have WMDs, he said, in effect, "Saddam has WMDs and can give them to terrorists to bring to the US." Scare tactics. It's worked for two elections; will be interesting to see if it works again.

I'll say this again: If someone comes up with proof that Saddam had WMDs, this Administration will bypass the regular media and go straight to the American people with a news conference. Bush went public once when he claimed those big trailers were WMD labs. He looked like the fool he was when his own intelligence agencies disagreed with him. I'd love to see him do that again.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Southdakotahunter said:
dis said:
Yes, he said that. But he lies. Why would you believe anything he says? We didn't go into Iraq because there were terrorists there. There weren't. We didn't go into Iraq to free the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator. We went into Iraq because George W. Bush wanted to get Saddam. That we could also get their oil supplies for this country was another plus. The problem with the scheme is their total incompetence and refusal to listen to professional soldiers who told them it would take more resources than they wanted to commit.
(my bold)


Well Dis Fonda, this is where you said BUSH wanted the oil. Now i hear Iran this morning is saying we should be paying over $100 a barrel. I think bush and his pals are grinning ear to ear on that.

Well read it again. I said
We went into Iraq because George W. Bush wanted to get Saddam. That we could also get their oil supplies for this country was another plus.

I didn't say Bush took us into Iraq because he wanted their oil. Misrepresenting my statements won't win any arguments.
 

Latest posts

Top