Delay will walk IF it goes to trial..

[Stinger]

The thing about Delay is...it took the Dems 40 years to get as corrupt as the repubs have gotten in 10 years of power! LOL!

So you have already convicted him?

 

[Hoot]

Originally Posted by Hoot>>
And what, pray tell, was the date of Saddam having apprx 500 tons?
Long since destroyed before March of 2003, the date that Bush took us into this mess? <<Hoot

We have it now. It was there when we got there.

That's not an answer. What was the date? We had inspectors on the ground in Iraq before the war. Did they or did they not find this 500 tons BEFORE or AFTER we invaded Iraq? A simple question.

 

[Hoot]

So you have already convicted him?

Hell yes! About as corrupt as they come....and he can take Frist, Libby, Rove and Cheney with him...they should all be tried for twisting intelligence to suit their ends.

Even the repubs are distancing themselves from this administration, the worst and most corrupt in history.

Makes the Clinton years seem like a trip to Disneyland in comparison.

As I said before, even if Delay walks...he will never regain the power he once had...he's finished. And good riddance to a malicious back stabbing power hungry, money grubbing maniac.

BUSH.....IN GREED WE TRUST

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Hoot>>
And what, pray tell, was the date of Saddam having apprx 500 tons?
<<Hoot


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
We have it now. It was there when we got there.

That's not an answer.

Yes it is, clear as can be.

What was the date?

What date?

We had inspectors on the ground in Iraq before the war.

Yeah, and they said Saddam was still no cooperating.

Did they or did they not find this 500 tons BEFORE or AFTER we invaded Iraq?

Both.

A simple question.

A simple answer.

Long since destroyed before March of 2003, the date that Bush took us into this mess?

Nope. We are now in control of it.

 

[Stinger]

Hell yes! About as corrupt as they come....and he can take Frist, Libby, Rove and Cheney with him...they should all be tried for twisting intelligence to suit their ends.

Even the repubs are distancing themselves from this administration, the worst and most corrupt in history.

Makes the Clinton years seem like a trip to Disneyland in comparison.

As I said before, even if Delay walks...he will never regain the power he once had...he's finished. And good riddance to a malicious back stabbing power hungry, money grubbing maniac.

BUSH.....IN GREED WE TRUST

I have saved you assertions, after both of these pan out, we'll review.

 

[getinvolved]

Whether he's found guilty or not guilty, Tom DeLay's political career is over. His approval rating in his own district is hardly enough to guarantee him reelection in 2006, and even if he survives that, his "temporary" step-down from his position as Majority Leader will not be temporary.

Whether you agree with him politically or not, Tom DeLay is a horrible human being who represents all that is wrong with Washington. He's corrupt to the bone and stands for nothing. The GOP-led House Ethics Committee has admonished him several times. His redistricting of Texas was absolutely disgraceful. Tom DeLay came to power promising small government, and now claims that there's no fat left to cut in the budget, because "after 12 years of Republican rule, we've pared it down pretty good."

Will he be found guilty or innocent? I don't know, and neither do you. But how in the world can you defend this man?

:applaud Thank you!


This thread is ridiculous. As I read it is sounds like you are defending Jesus here. Delay is in no way, shape, or form an innocent man. He certianly does represent everything that is wrong with Washignton. He deserves everything he gets here. And as Kandahar noted - found guilty or not on these charges how can you defend a man like this.?

He is about as innocent as OJ.

 

[Hoot]

Hoot>>
And what, pray tell, was the date of Saddam having apprx 500 tons?
<<

Originally Posted by Stinger
We have it now. It was there when we got there.

Lie

Hoot>>
That's not an answer. <<

Yes it is, clear as can be.

Hoot>>
What was the date? <<

What date?

Hoot>>
We had inspectors on the ground in Iraq before the war.<<

Yeah, and they said Saddam was still no cooperating.

Hoot>>
Did they or did they not find this 500 tons BEFORE or AFTER we invaded Iraq? <<

Both.

An outright, bald-faced lie.


Hoot>>
A simple question. <<

A simple answer.

I guess I shouldn't expect much more than a simple response from a simple mind?

Hoot>>
Long since destroyed before March of 2003, the date that Bush took us into this mess?<<

Nope. We are now in control of it.

You need to get your info from someplace other then NewsMax, Stinger.

Here's the real truth...we knew Saddam had yellow cake. Bush also knew the whole Niger story was a clumsy forgery up to a year in advance of Bush blatantly attempting to scare the American people into supporting this war.

the yellow cake story by Bush was a red herring....Bush knew Saddam would need HUNDREDS of centrifuges to enrich that unranium into weapons grade material...centrifuges that would give off gamma rays and radiation and gases, easily detectable by our surveillance satellites. So......

Again I ask you...Why would Saddam be attempting to purchase yellow cake when he already had yellow cake at the supposed time of his attempted purchase?!

I've lost faith in you, Stinger...you blew this one. I told you to stop hanging around back stage...haven't you ever heard of contact highs?

And by the way, don't ever ask me a question and expect a straight answer after the run-around you gave this topic.

Maybe you should run for office under the republican banner? You're pretty good at evading questions you don't like.

 

[Stu Ghatze]

Hoot>>
And what, pray tell, was the date of Saddam having apprx 500 tons?
<<




Lie

Hoot>>
That's not an answer. <<





Hoot>>
What was the date? <<





Hoot>>
We had inspectors on the ground in Iraq before the war.<<






Hoot>>
Did they or did they not find this 500 tons BEFORE or AFTER we invaded Iraq? <<



An outright, bald-faced lie.


Hoot>>
A simple question. <<




I guess I shouldn't expect much more than a simple response from a simple mind?

Hoot>>
Long since destroyed before March of 2003, the date that Bush took us into this mess?<<




You need to get your info from someplace other then NewsMax, Stinger.

Here's the real truth...we knew Saddam had yellow cake. Bush also knew the whole Niger story was a clumsy forgery up to a year in advance of Bush blatantly attempting to scare the American people into supporting this war.

the yellow cake story by Bush was a red herring....Bush knew Saddam would need HUNDREDS of centrifuges to enrich that unranium into weapons grade material...centrifuges that would give off gamma rays and radiation and gases, easily detectable by our surveillance satellites. So......

Again I ask you...Why would Saddam be attempting to purchase yellow cake when he already had yellow cake at the supposed time of his attempted purchase?!

I've lost faith in you, Stinger...you blew this one. I told you to stop hanging around back stage...haven't you ever heard of contact highs?



Maybe you should run for office under the republican banner? You're pretty good at evading questions you don't like.

What.........you mean the democrats finally found a party worse than themselves, & their own behavior traits, & a party whos candidates can NEVER campaign on who they really are, & what they really believe in??

Huh huh...:2razz:

 

[Stinger]

Hoot>>
And what, pray tell, was the date of Saddam having apprx 500 tons?
<<

Originally Posted by Stinger
Originally Posted by Stinger
We have it now. It was there when we got there.

Lie

What do you mean lie, you don't know that Saddam had 500 tons of yellow-cake? That's a fact that has never been hidden. The IAEC had it tagged and inventoried. When he kicked everyone out in 1998 it remained there, he let the IAEC monitor it but it was under his control to do with whatever he wanted to do. When we returned and captured him we found it again. Some of it was partial enriched.


Hoot>>
Did they or did they not find this 500 tons BEFORE or AFTER we invaded Iraq? <<

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Both.

An outright, bald-faced lie.

You don't know what you are talking about and you are digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole.

I guess I shouldn't expect much more than a simple response from a simple mind?

I guess if all you have left are personal invectives this conversation will end pretty quickly. You can applogize now.

Hoot>>
Long since destroyed before March of 2003, the date that Bush took us into this mess?<<

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Nope. We are now in control of it.

You need to get your info from someplace other then NewsMax, Stinger.

Well I get mine from the actual hearings that were held and since you have not been able to discount any of that or what NewsMax and other sources report either I think you should prehapd reevaluate your own choices.

The fact is we are in control of the yellow-cake that was once in Saddam's control. That is an incontrovertable fact.

Here's the real truth...we knew Saddam had yellow cake.

Well you certainly have gone out of your way to say he didn't.

Bush also knew the whole Niger story was a clumsy forgery up to a year in advance of Bush blatantly attempting to scare the American people into supporting this war.

I don't think Bush gave a rats-ass about the forged documents from Italy, he had long before then been given ample evidence of Saddam's attempts to procure yellow-cake.

the yellow cake story by Bush was a red herring...

The lies that the forged documents were the one and only source of information about Saddam's nuclear intents is a red herring.

Bush knew Saddam would need HUNDREDS of centrifuges to enrich that unranium into weapons grade material...centrifuges that would give off gamma rays and radiation and gases, easily detectable by our surveillance satellites. So......

You've posted nothing to base those assertions on.

Again I ask you...Why would Saddam be attempting to purchase yellow cake when he already had yellow cake at the supposed time of his attempted purchase?!

Why wouldn't he want to aquire more?

I've lost faith in you, Stinger...you blew this one. I told you to stop hanging around back stage...haven't you ever heard of contact highs?

Haughtness is sign that you are losing the debate and can't find a graceful way out of it.

And by the way, don't ever ask me a question and expect a straight answer after the run-around you gave this topic.

And phoney claims about technique doesn't not substitute for factual, documented rebuttle. Don't you think we've all been doing this long enought to see right through your littel tirade?

Maybe you should run for office under the republican banner? You're pretty good at evading questions you don't like.

What question do you claim I've evaded, I have answer you fully, you just can't get over the answer and not being able to rebut the facts.

Oh well.

 

[Hoot]

Dear Stinger...you presented the 500 LBs as though it was a justification for Bush leading us into this war. In your last post, you presented a date of 1998, a good 5 years before we invaded Iraq.

Originally, when I pressed you for a date, you hemmed and hawed and refused to give an answer.

After Bush's State of the Union address in Jan., of 2003, with the infamous 16 words, we know the White House had evidence, a year in advance, that the Niger story was a "clumsy and forged document." IAEA

Our own FBI is still investigating whether "the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception aimed at manipulating public opinion regarding Iraq." March 2003

If you do not know that hundreds of centrifuges are needed to enrich yellow-cake into weapons grade fissile material, well...that's your problem.

Condeleeza Rice on June 8th, 2003 when asked about the yellow cake/Niger episode said..."Of course it was information that was mistaken."

Here's the bottom line once again...Iraq already possessed stores of uranium similar to what it was "alleged" to want to buy from Niger, and a new shipment wouldn't have put them any closer to having nuclear weapons.

The State Departments Intelligence Agency, the INR, in a footnote in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for 2002, expressed this same belief...

If we believe Iraq wanted nuclear weapons and "is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon-related capabilities, the activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgement." NIE on Iraq 2002

Does anyone else detect the faint whiff of Vietnam and the stench of Watergate in this administration?

 

[Binary_Digit]

Interesting point Hoot, that Iraq already had uranium. But despite what Condeleeza Rice and George Tenet said about the "16 words," I still don't understand why they are considered a mistake. They spoke the truth. British intel had learned that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from Africa. They still believe that is the case today. Even the White House said it was wrong for Bush to say that, but I don't understand since it was true!

 

[Stinger]

Dear Stinger...you presented the 500 LBs as though it was a justification for Bush leading us into this war. In your last post, you presented a date of 1998, a good 5 years before we invaded Iraq.

Originally, when I pressed you for a date, you hemmed and hawed and refused to give an answer.

Nope, I gave you the answer several times, apparently you were fishing for something else.

The bottom line is he already pocessed 500 tons, some of it partially enriched. He wanted more. He wanted to persue nuclear weapons. Had he been left in power he would have. He was removed.

 

[Hoot]

Interesting point Hoot, that Iraq already had uranium. But despite what Condeleeza Rice and George Tenet said about the "16 words," I still don't understand why they are considered a mistake. They spoke the truth. British intel had learned that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from Africa. They still believe that is the case today. Even the White House said it was wrong for Bush to say that, but I don't understand since it was true!

Technically, you're right on this point. I don't believe Bush lied when he said the "16 words." I've never believed this was a lie...in the strictest sense of the word.

But let's suppose you're President, and you have intelligence that states a foreign government believes Saddam attempted to buy uranium from Niger.

You also have intelligence, from your own State Department, that presents serious doubts of the Saddam/Niger buy.

Would you place those "16 words" in your State of the Union address?

Or would you wait until the truth was known?