So Bush...where are the WMD's?, friggin idiot... Options

[Sh0gunkid8721]

Bush and all his supporters, im sorry to say it are retarded. He has got to be the dumbest president on earth. dumb f* cker.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.ad...112005909990004



WASHINGTON (Jan. 12) - The search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has quietly concluded without any evidence of the banned weapons that President Bush cited as justification for going to war, the White House said Wednesday.

The Iraq Survey Group, made up of some 1,200 military and intelligence specialists and support staff, spent nearly two years searching military installations, factories and laboratories whose equipment and products might be converted quickly to making weapons.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there no longer is an active search for weapons. ''There may be a couple, a few people, that are focused on that'' but that it has largely concluded, he said.

''If they have any reports of (weapons of mass destruction) obviously they'll continue to follow up on those reports,'' McClellan said. ''A lot of their mission is focused elsewhere now.''

Chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer is to deliver his final report on the search next month. ''It's not going to fundamentally alter the findings of his earlier report,'' McClellan said, referring to preliminary findings from last September. Duelfer reported then that Saddam Hussein not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either. Bush unapologetically defended his decision to invade Iraq.

Bush has appointed a panel to investigate why the intelligence about Iraq's weapons was wrong.


01-12-05 1157EST



This post has been edited by Sh0gunkid8721: Jan 12, 2005 - 1:55 PM

[Supersprynt]

Ah, sarcasm. I had a feeling but I wasnt sure. He got re-elected because he managed to pull every religous person from the depths of society who normally dont vote into the voting booths. If you noticed which states were red, they were southern and midwest.

[FallenHero]

If you noticed which states were red, they were southern and midwest.
[right][snapback]233365[/snapback][/right]

That's every election. Face it guys, they should never have tried to sell John Kerry. they could have used almost anyone else in the party and easily beat Bush,,, but they didn't. So why did he get the nomination? I have no clue... Maybe he had the financial backing???

[CheesyLobster]

If you noticed which states were red, they were southern and midwest.
[right][snapback]233365[/snapback][/right]

That's every election. Face it guys, they should never have tried to sell John Kerry. they could have used almost anyone else in the party and easily beat Bush,,, but they didn't. So why did he get the nomination? I have no clue... Maybe he had the financial backing???
[right][snapback]233372[/snapback][/right]

Agreed. I think that Kerry was a terrible choice as the dem. representative. Troughout history, the southern and widwest states have always supported the cannidate that better related to themself. Bush has the image of a working man who is religious and traditional, just like most of the people in the southern and midwest states.

My choice for the dem. candidate if I could have voted (im republican, and was 17) would have been Wesley Clark, or Dean (dean was a good candidate, but simply had his image destroied by that scream; shows how important image is in an election). Both of these candidates seemed to have the best intent for the counrty, where both bush and kerry, imo, did/do not.