CBS News Report, April 3, 2002 - Page 3

PoliticallyIncorrect · #21 (**permalink**) 10-27-2004, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney-fife";p=&quot

"LINKS, SOURCES, QUOTES, PROOF???
LINKS, SOURCES, QUOTES, PROOF???
LINKS, SOURCES, QUOTES, PROOF???
LINKS, SOURCES, QUOTES, PROOF???
LINKS, SOURCES, QUOTES, PROOF???
LINKS, SOURCES, QUOTES, PROOF???"

I believe that would be the burden of those making up these bogus charges. You have to prove something is correct, not disprove it isn't. Lurch is out there making Howard Dean like remarks with absolutely ZERO proof. He only reads the NY Times each morning, gets his marching orders, and pukes out whatever dribble the Times has reported. The Times--they were the ones who fired Liberal editor Howard Raines for using the ostensibly object news pages of the Times to crusade against the war, along with his defense of known plagiarism by Times reporter Jayson Blair.

What a fish-wrap!

PS

In no Times article do they cite the date these explosives were found missing. It is only by implication do they endeavor to make the reader believe it occurred under US occupation.

Are you Blind or just Dumb?

Have links in my posts - where are yours?

barney-fife · #22 (**permalink**) 10-27-2004, 01:26 PM

You, nor Lurch, nor the DNC nor the NY Times has posted ANY shred of proof that the explosives became missing on ANY certain date. And until you do, your claims remain debunked.

Here's a thought--how about bringing reserrection to your defense of CBS news, Dan Rather and the forged National Guard documents? How about documenting for us all the world leaders Lurch met with a few months back, claiming he had their support? How about documenting Lurch's claim that he met with the FULL UN Secruity Council, despite the fact no one on the Council has any knowledge of that meeting?

PoliticallyIncorrect · #23 (**permalink**) 10-27-2004, 02:19 PM

Quote:

You, nor Lurch, nor the DNC nor the NY Times has posted ANY shred of proof that the explosives became missing on ANY certain date. And until you do, your claims remain debunked.

So YOU know when they went missing? That's the point - This is a weapons facility THAT was secure until Bush Took over - and NO ONE knows what happened to 380 Tonnes of weapons materials. All we know is that the 3rd Infiltry division saw the boxes AFTER the invasion in April 2003

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...579362,00.html

Quote:

Q. When did U.S. troops arrive at the site, how aggressively did they search for the weapons and did they secure the facility when they left?

A. The Army's 3rd Infantry Division reached Al-Qaqaa around April 3, 2003, fought with Iraqi forces, occupied the site and left after two days for Baghdad.

Quote:

Here's a thought--how about bringing reserrection to your defense of CBS news, Dan Rather and the forged National Guard documents? How about documenting for us all the world leaders Lurch met with a few months back, claiming he had their support? How about documenting Lurch's claim that he met with the FULL UN Secruity Council, despite the fact no one on the Council has any knowledge of that meeting?

What the hell does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Are you honestly comparing what you suggest as exaggerations WITH LOSING weapons to Insurgents?

Barney - you're shooting blanks here buddy, you haven't knocked anyone up with your angle - I suggest you actually investigate your position rather than regurgitate FOX news crap

barney-fife · #24 (**permalink**) 10-27-2004, 02:28 PM

All you're doing is making a charge that can in no way be proved nor substantiated. Which is right out of the demo/mainstrean media playbook.

For us to believe your account, 380 cubic tons of material were taken, and no US soldiers saw it taking place. Yeah, that's pretty plausible--not.

PoliticallyIncorrect · #25 (**permalink**) 10-27-2004, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney-fife";p=&quot

All you're doing is making a charge that can in no way be proved nor substantiated. Which is right out of the demo/mainstrean media playbook.

For us to believe your account, 380 cubic tons of material were taken, and no US soldiers saw it taking place. Yeah, that's pretty plausible--not.

AGAIN, THAT"S MY POINT

Where did the weapons GO?? How is it that the Bush administration Doesn't know where 380 Tonnes of weapons materials went to or who has it???

Maybe if I put it in a song you would understand:

"Oh where oh where did the weapons go
Oh where oh where can they be
With Bush claiming he will keep us all safe
how did 380 tonnes of weapons go free?"

barney-fife · #26 (**permalink**) 10-27-2004, 03:05 PM

Where did 1/10 of 1% of the weapons that have been destroyed go? You mean the stuff that was gone before the troops even got there?

1/10 of 1% of the weapons discovered and destroyed is what you're (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about? And weapons that weren't discovered because they had already been removed?

Stiick with defending the CBS bogus national guard documents--you'll have better luck with that one.

But it just shows to go--if not for the UN and the liberal's intent on a second resolution, we'd invaded sooner and the weapons in question would not be missing. Looking for blame? Blame it on the congressional liberals for stalling us from invading sooner.

barney-fife · #27 (**permalink**) 10-27-2004, 03:12 PM

Satellite photos note a large convoy of trucks leaving the facility, just prior to the US invasion.

Wonder what they were loaded with?

PoliticallyIncorrect · #28 (**permalink**) 10-27-2004, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney-fife";p=&quot

Where did 1/10 of 1% of the weapons that have been destroyed go? You mean the stuff that was gone before the troops even got there?

WHERE is it written that the weapons were discovered and destroyed?

Quote:

1/10 of 1% of the weapons discovered and destroyed is what you're *beep* about? And weapons that weren't discovered because they had already been removed?

WHERE is it written that the weapons were discovered and destroyed?

Quote:

Stiick with defending the CBS bogus national guard documents--you'll have better luck with that one.

GET THE LINK WHERE I DEFENDED CBS - PROOVE IT

Quote:

But it just shows to go--if not for the UN and the liberal's intent on a second resolution, we'd invaded sooner and the weapons in question would not be missing. Looking for blame? Blame it on the congressional liberals for stalling us from invading sooner.

Actually, the weapons would have still been secured by the IAEA as they had been FOR 12 YEARS prior to the Bush invasion

Barney, RESEARCH YOUR POINTS BEFORE YOU MAKE THEM

Even Other Repubes in here know that the materials were not discovered and destroyed by US troops, (except those who rely on conservative right wing propoganda websites - Meow)

get a grip because you're getting boring

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzz

barney-fife · #29 (**permalink**) 10-27-2004, 03:19 PM

satellite photos reveal a large convoy of trucks leaving the facility, just prior to the invasion. Wonder what they were loaded with?

When it comes to facts, you don't know spit from shinola. Reading demo talking points hardley qualifies as facts.

PoliticallyIncorrect · #30 (**permalink**) 10-27-2004, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney-fife";p=&quot

satellite photos reveal a large convoy of trucks leaving the facility, just prior to the invasion. Wonder what they were loaded with?

When it comes to facts, you don't know spit from shinola. Reading demo talking points hardley qualifies as facts.

Now your resorting to posting the same point in 2 two threads? AGAIN with NO FACTS

I'll believe it when I see it, games not over until Barbara Bush sings

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode