• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

No, Bush's claim was more than he had them. More than researching them. That he had active programs, actively developing and stockpiling. There was no evidence to support that. None. You ahd to bring in the doubted intel in order to even pretend that was true.
So despite the fact that more than half the democrats voted FOR the war and were provided such things as a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's WMDs, you still believe Bush magically performed voodoo and convinced a majority of congress on HIS word alone?

The Iraq Intelligence Commission found "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapon systems". In fact, the Iraq Intelligence Commission placed the blame on the intelligence community, "not merely that the assessments were wrong... But that there were serious shortcomings in the way these assessments were made and communicated to policymakers."

What reliable commission, document, or investigation has concluded or supported the idea that Bush and his administration lied?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
So despite the fact that more than half the democrats voted FOR the war and were provided such things as a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's WMDs, you still believe Bush magically performed voodoo and convinced a majority of congress on HIS word alone?

The Iraq Intelligence Commission found "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapon systems". In fact, the Iraq Intelligence Commission placed the blame on the intelligence community, "not merely that the assessments were wrong... But that there were serious shortcomings in the way these assessments were made and communicated to policymakers."

What reliable commission, document, or investigation has concluded or supported the idea that Bush and his administration lied?

There was never a vote for war. No declaration of war was ever issued. What was voted for was to let Bush decide, a passing of the Buck if you will. Cowardly by all in congress to be sure, but not a vote for war. In fact, some said clearly that if Bush went with the UN, they would oppose him as Saddam did not meet the level of threat to require such an action (see kerry's speech).

As for what was found, the limit the question to give a false impression. It was pressure influence the pre-war intelligence. No one claims that. It was the use of the intel, the misrepresentation of it that was the lie. Bush used intel from Curveball that was doubted. Those doubts were not passed on in their presentation. Bush used intel from Chalibi and his heros in error that was doubt, and agin with no acknowledgement of this doubt. Bush used coearsed testimony from al Libi that the CIA doubted, even doubt he could possibly know. And we do have a verdict by the IG that says this use of intel was inappropriate. No one said Bush's people were stupid. Overt pressure would have been found out quickly. Better to merely send thenm back and re-look at doubted intel and then pretend it was credible and sound intel.

Read the IG report on inappropriate use of intel. or, listen to claims versus truth, look at how he got that intel, where it came from, and ask if you would call anyone being so dishonest with you honesty.
 
The Iraq Intelligence Commission found "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapon systems". In fact, the Iraq Intelligence Commission placed the blame on the intelligence community, "not merely that the assessments were wrong... But that there were serious shortcomings in the way these assessments were made and communicated to policymakers."
Could you provide a link to a more detailed description of the report to which you are referring?
 
There was never a vote for war. No declaration of war was ever issued. What was voted for was to let Bush decide, a passing of the Buck if you will. Cowardly by all in congress to be sure, but not a vote for war.
what exactly is "the Iraq war Resolution" then?

What "vote for war" do you require?

In fact, some said clearly that if Bush went with the UN, they would oppose him as Saddam did not meet the level of threat to require such an action (see kerry's speech).
So what? Those people can choose to vote against the war and they did. They were a MINORITY.

After the war, Bush stated that he found out that the intelligence was wrong and was just as disappointed as everybody else when wmd were not found. He nonetheless stands by his decision citing the many OTHER reasons for invasion.

It was the use of the intel, the misrepresentation of it that was the lie.
and no report, investigation, or committee has found evidence to support this. The only one's I am aware who claim this are conspiracy theorists and people with a political agenda.

No one, or nothing of integrity. can you provide a source of integrity who supports your claim that Bush lied or deliberately misrepresented?

Bush used intel from Curveball that was doubted. Those doubts were not passed on in their presentation. Bush used intel from Chalibi and his heros in error that was doubt, and agin with no acknowledgement of this doubt. Bush used coearsed testimony from al Libi that the CIA doubted, even doubt he could possibly know. And we do have a verdict by the IG that says this use of intel was inappropriate. No one said Bush's people were stupid. Overt pressure would have been found out quickly. Better to merely send thenm back and re-look at doubted intel and then pretend it was credible and sound intel.
correction. Bush was informed by Intelligence services and made his arguments for war based on those. Those Intelligence Services were found to be in error.

All you have demonstrated so far is speculation and conjecture. What report or investigation supports your accusations? Or is it all a "conspiracy"?

Read the IG report on inappropriate use of intel. or, listen to claims versus truth, look at how he got that intel, where it came from, and ask if you would call anyone being so dishonest with you honesty.
Please cite and quote the part of the IG report that supports the claim that Bush was dishonest or lied.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
what exactly is "the Iraq war Resolution" then?

What "vote for war" do you require?

As I said, a vote to let Bush decide. It is not a declaration of war.

So what? Those people can choose to vote against the war and they did. They were a MINORITY.

After the war, Bush stated that he found out that the intelligence was wrong and was just as disappointed as everybody else when wmd were not found. He nonetheless stands by his decision citing the many OTHER reasons for invasion.

No, they voted for the resolution but explained their vote and what they wanted. Again, read Kerry for example. It was not a vote to go to war, it was a vote to allow Bush to decide.

And if you buy that about Bush after the war, you'll buy just about anything. :sigh: Again, the IG ruled the intel was used inapropriately. What was seen as reliable by the CIA was correct. Wha was doubted proved to be false. So, the intel was correct. How it was used was wrong.

and no report, investigation, or committee has found evidence to support this. The only one's I am aware who claim this are conspiracy theorists and people with a political agenda.

No one, or nothing of integrity. can you provide a source of integrity who supports your claim that Bush lied or deliberately misrepresented?

Again, I point to IG report. It did report the intel was used inapropriately.

This report documents significant instances in which the administration went beyond what the intelligence community knew--well beyond what the intelligence committee knew or believed, most notably on the false assertion that Iraq and al-Qaida had an operational relationship, a partnership, and the manipulative attempt to suggest, inaccurately, that Iraq had any complicity in the attacks of September 11--shockingly wrong statements which were made and made and made.

Sen. Rockefeller on Prewar Iraq Intelligence

The Pentagon's acting inspector general, Thomas Gimble, told the senate armed services committee that the office headed by Douglas Feith, formerly the number three man at the defence department, took "inappropriate" actions in pushing the al-Qaida connection not backed up by America's intelligence agencies.

Pentagon report condemns misleading Iraq intelligence | World news | guardian.co.uk


correction. Bush was informed by Intelligence services and made his arguments for war based on those. Those Intelligence Services were found to be in error.

All you have demonstrated so far is speculation and conjecture. What report or investigation supports your accusations? Or is it all a "conspiracy"?

Again false. Through Cheney's office, they went beyond the intel and used doubted intel in their arguments. Read up on Chalibi and his heors in error, curveball, and al Libi.

I have cited the IG report. However I note you are setting up a standard that's a bit deceptive. That gives me a bit of a laugh. If you use intel that is knowingly inapporpriate, I'm sure I can only conlcude he wasn't lying. :lamo :lamo
 
As I said, a vote to let Bush decide. It is not a declaration of war.
And how is that illegal or invalid?

Or you just don't personally like it?



No, they voted for the resolution but explained their vote and what they wanted. Again, read Kerry for example. It was not a vote to go to war, it was a vote to allow Bush to decide.
so they voted to give Bush the power to go to war and he DID.

How is that a surprising event?

Again, the IG ruled the intel was used inapropriately. What was seen as reliable by the CIA was correct. Wha was doubted proved to be false. So, the intel was correct. How it was used was wrong.



Again, I point to IG report. It did report the intel was used inapropriately.

This report documents significant instances in which the administration went beyond what the intelligence community knew--well beyond what the intelligence committee knew or believed, most notably on the false assertion that Iraq and al-Qaida had an operational relationship, a partnership, and the manipulative attempt to suggest, inaccurately, that Iraq had any complicity in the attacks of September 11--shockingly wrong statements which were made and made and made.

Sen. Rockefeller on Prewar Iraq Intelligence
this is NOT the IG report.

This is a partisan speech by Sen Rockefeller who interprets things to his own perspective.

Do you have the IG report? Can you CITE it to support your claims?

The Pentagon's acting inspector general, Thomas Gimble, told the senate armed services committee that the office headed by Douglas Feith, formerly the number three man at the defence department, took "inappropriate" actions in pushing the al-Qaida connection not backed up by America's intelligence agencies.

Pentagon report condemns misleading Iraq intelligence | World news | guardian.co.uk
Got anything about the ACTUAL report and not news articles?



Again false. Through Cheney's office, they went beyond the intel and used doubted intel in their arguments. Read up on Chalibi and his heors in error, curveball, and al Libi.

I have cited the IG report. However I note you are setting up a standard that's a bit deceptive. That gives me a bit of a laugh. If you use intel that is knowingly inapporpriate, I'm sure I can only conlcude he wasn't lying. :lamo :lamo

You have not cited anything of value...yet. Please try harder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
And how is that illegal or invalid?

Or you just don't personally like it?

Read slow. I said it was a declaration of war, so you can't say they voted for war. Said nothing about it being illegal.


so they voted to give Bush the power to go to war and he DID.

How is that a surprising event?

Surprising, no. A vote to go war, not that either. certainly cowardly. certianly passing the buck. But not a vote for war.

this is NOT the IG report.

This is a partisan speech by Sen Rockefeller who interprets things to his own perspective.

Do you have the IG report? Can you CITE it to support your claims?

One is on the second half of the senate investigation. The other is a news article on the IG report.

Working under Douglas J. Feith, who at the time was under secretary of defense for policy, the group “developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and Al Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers,” the report concluded.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/washington/09feith.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref

Any search will bring up any number of links for this.

Got anything about the ACTUAL report and not news articles?

Nothing wrong with news reports. Got any reason to doubt the reports?




You have not cited anything of value...yet. Please try harder.

:lamo :lamo You're trying too hard not accept the truth.

http://www.npr.org/documents/2007/feb/dod_iog_iraq_summary.pdf
 
Read slow. I said it was a declaration of war, so you can't say they voted for war. Said nothing about it being illegal.
Are you claiming that when members of congress voted on the resolution, they were NOT under the impression that war was imminent?

Why exactly did they vote to give him powers? Just in case Saddam attacked?

It would seem obvious that unless you are OK with the president going to war then you would NOT vote to give him the power. What alternative explanation do you offer?


Surprising, no. A vote to go war, not that either. certainly cowardly. certianly passing the buck. But not a vote for war.
Why should anyone care about your OPINION on this matter?


One is on the second half of the senate investigation. The other is a news article on the IG report.
NONE of it is the report. Its a speech by Rockefeller giving his interpretation and spin on it.

You appear unwilling or unable to cite the PRIMARY SOURCE to back up your claims (despite repeated requests). Why?

Working under Douglas J. Feith, who at the time was under secretary of defense for policy, the group “developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and Al Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers,” the report concluded.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/washington/09feith.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref

Any search will bring up any number of links for this.
I once again note Boo's inability to present a PRIMARY source, despite requests.

One can assume that excuses will follow.

Nothing wrong with news reports. Got any reason to doubt the reports?
YES! I have much reason to doubt news articles on controversial and political issues. Hence why I seek OFFICIAL and PRIMARY SOURCES that are readily available. The fact that you repeatedly fail to substantiate your position by citing from the PRIMARY source (despite repeated requests) indicates many things about your argument, none of which are positive.

Are you new to debate? Do you often believe everything that the new's reports, especially on controversial issues?

:lamo :lamo You're trying too hard not accept the truth.

Do you claim to be a mind-reader? Perhaps you should stick to debating facts rather than claiming to know others thoughts or motivations. All you have accomplished is ruining your own credibility--one of the only things of value in debate.



Haven't read this yet. I hope its not more opinion, speculation, and interpretation such as you have presented thus far.
 
Are you claiming that when members of congress voted on the resolution, they were NOT under the impression that war was imminent?

Why exactly did they vote to give him powers? Just in case Saddam attacked?

If you read there comments, it was to let Saddam know they were serious. But there is no mention of war being imminent nor is there a declaration of war.



I once again note Boo's inability to present a PRIMARY source, despite requests.

Might finish reading before responding.

YES! I have much reason to doubt news articles on controversial and political issues. Hence why I seek OFFICIAL and PRIMARY SOURCES that are readily available. The fact that you repeatedly fail to substantiate your position by citing from the PRIMARY source (despite repeated requests) indicates many things about your argument, none of which are positive.

Sources have various credibility, but the sources I use are credible, and there are multiple sources, which also indicate credibility. No one seriously doubted the sources on this.

Are you new to debate? Do you often believe everything that the new's reports, especially on controversial issues?

Nope. Been involved in formal debate. I would love to hold to the standard of a formal debate.

Do you claim to be a mind-reader? Perhaps you should stick to debating facts rather than claiming to know others thoughts or motivations. All you have accomplished is ruining your own credibility--one of the only things of value in debate.

Make such claim.
 
If you read there comments, it was to let Saddam know they were serious. But there is no mention of war being imminent nor is there a declaration of war.
I couldn't disagree more and believe people who "buy" that excuse are gullible.

We were building up on Iraq's border for months including bringing in heavy weapons. Everyone and their dog was aware that war was imminent., just not the "exact date or time".

The authorization was passed in october and the war restarted in march.

Perhaps some congressmen use the excuse that "they didn't think Bush would go to war". I believe that such people who buy that excuse are gullible unless they concede that their congressman is a moron.

Sources have various credibility, but the sources I use are credible, and there are multiple sources, which also indicate credibility.
I'm supposed to accept your news articles because YOU think your news articles are credible?

Once again I note the EXCUSES provided by Boo for not citing the PRIMARY source that the news articles supposedly represent.


Nope. Been involved in formal debate. I would love to hold to the standard of a formal debate.
This is not a formal debate where one side is given points or deemed a winner or loser, such as in highschool debate classes or clubs.
I've repeatedly requested that you support your claims by citing the PRIMARY source that you claimed backs your position. Instead you have offered excuses, offered news articles, and speeches rather than the source you claim supports your position.

Such behavior is typical of those who are unwilling or unable to defend their claims, to show they speak truth rather than presenting opinion, speculation, and conjecture.
 
That's what Saddam wanted. He felt that once they did that, he would be able to go back to developing and obtaining WMD. At least if the FBI agent that was in charge of questioning Saddam while he was in prison is to be believed.

Don't give a goddam what he wanted or didn't want. Don't see how you can think that's relevant. Screw him, and do what we know was right, and invading his country again wasn't it.
 
So despite the fact that more than half the democrats voted FOR the war and were provided such things as a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's WMDs, you still believe Bush magically performed voodoo and convinced a majority of congress on HIS word alone?

The Iraq Intelligence Commission found "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapon systems". In fact, the Iraq Intelligence Commission placed the blame on the intelligence community, "not merely that the assessments were wrong... But that there were serious shortcomings in the way these assessments were made and communicated to policymakers."

What reliable commission, document, or investigation has concluded or supported the idea that Bush and his administration lied?

A real easy example, and I think Boo Radley referred to it, is something called 'Alternative Intelligence.'

Google Wolfowitz (White House), Levin, alternative intelligence.

This was false information contrived to promote the Iraq war.
 
A real easy example, and I think Boo Radley referred to it, is something called 'Alternative Intelligence.'

Google Wolfowitz (White House), Levin, alternative intelligence.

This was false information contrived to promote the Iraq war.
Which report are you referring to? Can you link us to it?
 
Don't be silly. He hadn't been bombed in years, and still had no new wmds. He had no ability. Wanting is not equal to having. And not equal to making either.

I know. Clinton saying Saddam has WMD even though he didn't is not equal to Bush saying Saddam had WMD even though he didnt'. We get it. You're a partisan hack.
 
I couldn't disagree more and believe people who "buy" that excuse are gullible.

We were building up on Iraq's border for months including bringing in heavy weapons. Everyone and their dog was aware that war was imminent, just not the "exact date or time".

The authorization was passed in october and the war restarted in march.

Perhaps some congressmen use the excuse that "they didn't think Bush would go to war". I believe that such people who buy that excuse are gullible unless they concede that their congressman is a moron.

I'm supposed to accept your news articles because YOU think your news articles are credible?

Once again I note the EXCUSES provided by Boo for not citing the PRIMARY source that the news articles supposedly represent.

Your agreement is not required. And no matter of reading in mean anything. What means something is what was written and said. But, you're in real denail here. I thought you knew something about the subject, but prove repeatedly here that known elements have escaped you. That happens when one has his head in the sand. :sigh:

This is not a formal debate where one side is given points or deemed a winner or loser, such as in highschool debate classes or clubs.
I've repeatedly requested that you support your claims by citing the PRIMARY source that you claimed backs your position. Instead you have offered excuses, offered news articles, and speeches rather than the source you claim supports your position.

Such behavior is typical of those who are unwilling or unable to defend their claims, to show they speak truth rather than presenting opinion, speculation, and conjecture.

Yiou've had more than enough support. Only a person closing thier eys and sticking their fingers in their ears yelling Nah nah nahh I can't hear you would behave as you are. There is little to no speculation here. Facts have been presented. I always laugh at how the Obama is a muslim socialist marxist comunist racist from Kenya who hates America is accept without the smallest amount of evidence, but overwhelming evidence against Bush is mere opinion and speculation. You guys are sure funny. :lamo :lamo :sigh:
 
I know. Clinton saying Saddam has WMD even though he didn't is not equal to Bush saying Saddam had WMD even though he didnt'. We get it. You're a partisan hack.

Do we know Saddam didn't when Clinton said it? After all, that was much closer to our leaving than 2003 was, less would have degraded. And Bush's claim was not that Saddam had wmds, but that he not only had stockpiles, but had a growing and gathering program (with vague links to al Qaeda). Bush's claim went much farther than Clinton's and after Clinton had bombed and made Saddam even less of a threat.

Again, you take different things and pretend they are the same. That is the definition of bias.
 
Do we know Saddam didn't when Clinton said it? After all, that was much closer to our leaving than 2003 was, less would have degraded. And Bush's claim was not that Saddam had wmds, but that he not only had stockpiles, but had a growing and gathering program (with vague links to al Qaeda).

Yeah, I know. Clinton's claim that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD and he is developing them is not equal to Bush's claim that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD and is developing them.

It was asserted by you, or someone you thanked that the WMD was destroyed after the first gulf war. Some of the weapons inspectors also indicate that they agree with Saddam that the WMD were destroy in 1991, which was, in case you are confused, prior to operation desert strom.
 
Yeah, I know. Clinton's claim that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD and he is developing them is not equal to Bush's claim that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD and is developing them.

It was asserted by you, or someone you thanked that the WMD was destroyed after the first gulf war. Some of the weapons inspectors also indicate that they agree with Saddam that the WMD were destroy in 1991, which was, in case you are confused, prior to operation desert strom.

Not exactly Clinton's claim, but as it was years earlier and before he bombed and declared that threat over (his people said), yes it would be different.

And yes, most of the wmds were distoryed while the inspectors were there. I never said they all were destroyed. I also said Saddam had no way to store them, so they would degrade over TIME. You should not be so selective in what you latch onto.
 
Not exactly Clinton's claim, but as it was years earlier and before he bombed and declared that threat over (his people said), yes it would be different.

And yes, most of the wmds were distoryed while the inspectors were there. I never said they all were destroyed. I also said Saddam had no way to store them, so they would degrade over TIME. You should not be so selective in what you latch onto.

I know. Partisan hacks are more than happy to make excuses for those they support. I am prone to do it to, but try to be aware of it and stop myself.
 
I know. Partisan hacks are more than happy to make excuses for those they support. I am prone to do it to, but try to be aware of it and stop myself.

Yes they are, as you have been trying to do. But different things are not equal. Pretending they are is the definition of bias.
 
Yes they are, as you have been trying to do. But different things are not equal. Pretending they are is the definition of bias.

Oh, i'm not defending Bush. Not necessary because I don't think he should be defended, but just because that's not what we are discussing.

You, Saddam and some weapons inspectors claimed that Saddam destroyed his WMD after the first Gulf war in 1991. Clinton claimed Saddam had stockpiles of WMD in 1998, prior to Operation Desert Fox. He combed Saddam's weapon depots specifically to get rid of the WMDs that he had. Now, if the weapons were destroyed in 1991 as you guys claimed, then Saddam obviously didn't have them when Clinton indicated that he did. So, was Clinton lying, or were you, Saddam, and some weapons inspectors lying?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
Your agreement is not required.
Required for what?

You've made claims and I've challenged those claims.

I've asked you to support your claims with primary sources. The primary sources which you claim support your position, yet you repeatedly FAIL to present these sources and make EXCUSES for not doing so. Instead you post secondary sources: news articles, speeches, etc, which I do not accept because they are unreliable, opinions, and refer to the primary source.

Are you conceding that your primary source does NOT support your claim? Why do you continue to avoid presenting it to show that your argument is valid and supported by it?


What means something is what was written and said.
Many things have been written and said. Many of which are false, flawed, and incorrect.

Whatever personal "meaning" you derive is irrelevant in debate if you cannot demonstrate or show its truth to others.

But, you're in real denail here. I thought you knew something about the subject, but prove repeatedly here that known elements have escaped you. That happens when one has his head in the sand. :sigh:
I see. When you can't defend your claims you make accusations and personal attacks. Thank you for demonstrating your lack of integrity and naivete in debate.


Yiou've had more than enough support. Only a person closing thier eys and sticking their fingers in their ears yelling Nah nah nahh I can't hear you would behave as you are. There is little to no speculation here. Facts have been presented.
You have claimed that certain Inspector Generals report supports your claims but then FAIL to produce this report to support your claims. Instead you post new articles, speeches, and other opinion pieces. Do you think it goes unnoticed that you repeatedly FAIL to support your claim with the primary source that you won't produce?


I always laugh at how the Obama is a muslim socialist marxist comunist racist from Kenya who hates America is accept without the smallest amount of evidence, but overwhelming evidence against Bush is mere opinion and speculation. You guys are sure funny. :lamo :lamo :sigh:

What in the world are you ranting about? I haven't mentioned Obama once in this thread nor do I believe he is a "muslim socialist marxist communist racist from Kenya who hates America."

Once again this appears to be another smokescreen in an attempt to avoid producing the documents that YOU claim support your argument.

I think I'm about done here. You've demonstrated quite clearly your capacity for debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
You've made claims and I've challenged those claims.

I've asked you to support your claims with primary sources. The primary sources which you claim support your position, yet you repeatedly FAIL to present these sources and make EXCUSES for not doing so. Instead you post secondary sources: news articles, speeches, etc, which I do not accept because they are unreliable, opinions, and refer to the primary source.

Are you conceding that your primary source does NOT support your claim? Why do you continue to avoid presenting it to show that your argument is valid and supported by it?

I have supported my claim. no one outside of you disputes my claim. Even Fieth addresses the report, and aknowledges what it says. Your silliness is just that, silliness.

Many things have been written and said. Many of which are false, flawed, and incorrect.

Mostly on your side. Remember Rumsfeld, :absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That literally means there was no evidence. ;)


I see. When you can't defend your claims you make accusations and personal attacks. Thank you for demonstrating your lack of integrity and naivete in debate.

The claims have been supported. repeatedly.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/ig020907-decl.pdf

(oh, see page 14)

You have claimed that certain Inspector Generals report supports your claims but then FAIL to produce this report to support your claims. Instead you post new articles, speeches, and other opinion pieces. Do you think it goes unnoticed that you repeatedly FAIL to support your claim with the primary source that you won't produce?

Again, it has been supported, repeatedly.



What in the world are you ranting about? I haven't mentioned Obama once in this thread nor do I believe he is a "muslim socialist marxist communist racist from Kenya who hates America."

Once again this appears to be another smokescreen in an attempt to avoid producing the documents that YOU claim support your argument.

This isn't the only thread here. ;)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom