Oh how I wish they would have something like this. But they won't. See, the last thing the lefties want is for the TRUTH to see the light of day. Could you imagine George Satr on the stand testifying about how Saddam enlisted key members of his weapons program to bury nuclear centrifuges in their backyards? Counsel for the plaintiffs would no doubt object and call for a mistrial.
And what about footage, radar tapes and satellite imagery of planes, trains and automobiles leaving the country and heading to Syria(right under the U.N.'s nose) carrying cargo that gave off radioactive signatures. What about the footage of mass graves full of people killed by "non existent" WMD's in Iraq?
Could you imagine the lefties shifting uncomfortably when a list of the names of known terrorists and Al-Quaeda members who visited Iraq was presented as evidence? What about maps of all the known terrorist training camps in the country for the last ten years or more? So much for that myth about "no connection", eh?
Finally, what would the lefty attornies do when the "defense" counsel had several truckloads of artillery shells contaning traces of Sarin and other gases trucked to the courthouse? And how would France and Germany react when a paper trail showed these two countries to be guilty of helping Saddam build a nuclear reactor in exchange for cheap oil? Ever wonder why they were so against helping in the war? The war imperiled their financial interests. Kinda makes Haliburton look like a lemonade stand by comparison.
So even though the UN types, anti-war morons and other leftists may jack off fantasizing about putting Bush on trial, in reality they don't have the stones to do so. The truth would scatter their lies like a fart in a whirlwind.
Ironic how the administration is having trouble proving your case. Instead, they do the side-step shuffle and remind us insurgents are terrorists and say neener neener boo boo when Afghanistan and the total lack of success in that operation comes up.
The case has already been proven. Just because you(and the NY Times) choose to stick fingers in ears does not mean the truth is not out there. You've chosen your own truth and no other evidence will be accepted. Have you read George Satr's book? Perhaps you should...
The case has already been proven. Just because you(and the NY Times) choose to stick fingers in ears does not mean the truth is not out there. You've chosen your own truth and no other evidence will be accepted. Have you read George Satr's book? Perhaps you should...
Why isn't the Unelected White House occupant bringing up all this stuff in his speeches? Why didn't five deferment Cheney and Rumdummy scream it from the rooftops? Could it be that the CIA had already determined that Satr was full of crap?
There's nothing here let's move on.
Why isn't the Unelected White House occupant bringing up all this stuff in his speeches? Why didn't five deferment Cheney and Rumdummy scream it from the rooftops? Could it be that the CIA had already determined that Satr was full of crap?
There's nothing here let's move on.
That's funny. Still sticking with the whole "unelected" thing huh? I guess the biggest win in history (3 million +) doesn't count for anything.
And if you want to bring up Flordia in 2000. After an independant study showed that Bush won the state, Gore, not being satisfied with the results, higherd is own inept team to investigate. Guess what, his crackpot team came up with the same results. Bush won!!!
Unless you have the ability to "move on" as you say, don't tell others to.
Why isn't the Unelected White House occupant bringing up all this stuff in his speeches? Why didn't five deferment Cheney and Rumdummy scream it from the rooftops? Could it be that the CIA had already determined that Satr was full of crap?
There's nothing here let's move on.
Sure especially since the very way this was worded indicates that no answer no matter how exculpatory will be of any use. This mind has clearly been closed for a very long time.
That's funny. Still sticking with the whole "unelected" thing huh? I guess the biggest win in history (3 million +) doesn't count for anything.
And if you want to bring up Flordia in 2000. After an independant study showed that Bush won the state, Gore, not being satisfied with the results, higherd is own inept team to investigate. Guess what, his crackpot team came up with the same results. Bush won!!!
Unless you have the ability to "move on" as you say, don't tell others to.
You need to check your facts before you speak. In 2000 bu$h "won" Florida by less than 700 votes. There was massive vote fraud in Florida. Gore won the popular vote by more than 500,000. As to the 2004 election, yes bu$h won by 3million votes, but Florida and Ohio had "issues"(read massive irregularities) with their Diebold and ESS voting machines.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
You need to check your facts before you speak. In 2000 bu$h "won" Florida by less than 700 votes. There was massive vote fraud in Florida. Gore won the popular vote by more than 500,000. As to the 2004 election, yes bu$h won by 3million votes, but Florida and Ohio had "issues"(read massive irregularities) with their Diebold and ESS voting machines.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
So Gore came to terms with his loss by making pulic the findings of HIS investigation, how come YOU are having such trouble with it? Do you think Gore and Bush are in this together? How come two opposing politicians came up with the same results as did an independant comittee and yet YOU still think something is fraudulant?
There were "massive irregularities" with the mid term elections yet you don't hear the Republicans shouting fraud. On Nov 7 the New York Times headlined the already apparent voting irregularites and machine malfunctions. After the elections we heard nothing more about it. Why? Had the Republicans held onto their seats in the both houses I'm sure there would of been massive investigations into as why.
You guys lost in 2000, lost in 2004 and you won in 2006. I can handle it, how come you can't.
You need to check your facts before you speak. In 2000 bu$h "won" Florida by less than 700 votes. There was massive vote fraud in Florida. Gore won the popular vote by more than 500,000. As to the 2004 election, yes bu$h won by 3million votes, but Florida and Ohio had "issues"(read massive irregularities) with their Diebold and ESS voting machines.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
Please explain how and why all those DEMOCRAT controlled election boards committed voter fraud to get Bush elected in 2000??
Please explain how and why all those DEMOCRAT controlled election boards committed voter fraud to get Bush elected in 2000??
You don't make any sense. No election board can stop an EVM from changing its vote tally from one candidate to another if it has been tampered with. And that's exactly what happened.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote