Baracks real name

[FishermanTim]

Barry's birth certificate is most likely a true document.
The problem that comes to mind is that it DOESN'T look like it was issed in 1961, but in 2008, so that even though it is a legal document, it could contain incorrect information.

I agree that it should contain more information than that.

I don't want to fuel the fanatics any further, but what if "someone" were to get a blank form and type in what they wanted?
If there is no raised/notary seal on the document then how can anyone prove it's authentic?

[spence]

Originally Posted by FishermanTim

Barry's birth certificate is most likely a true document.
The problem that comes to mind is that it DOESN'T look like it was issed in 1961, but in 2008, so that even though it is a legal document, it could contain incorrect information.

I agree that it should contain more information than that.

I don't want to fuel the fanatics any further, but what if "someone" were to get a blank form and type in what they wanted?
If there is no raised/notary seal on the document then how can anyone prove it's authentic?

The document was from 2007, that's when that specific copy was pulled and notarized.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The document was from 2007, that's when that specific copy was pulled and notarized.

-spence

don't you mean?...fabricated

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

don't you mean?...fabricated

Just to be sure we're square, Hans Blix was found to be pretty much 100% correct on his Iraq findings...

#^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney? Not so much...

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

Just to be sure we're square, Hans Blix was found to be pretty much 100% correct on his Iraq findings...

#^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney? Not so much...

-spence

What are you talking about? There are millions of WMDs in Iraq. They're just buried under too much sand, or was it that they were shipped off to other countries, or Saddam must have destroyed them.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

What are you talking about? There are millions of WMDs in Iraq. They're just buried under too much sand, or was it that they were shipped off to other countries, or Saddam must have destroyed them.

IMO it's all of the above.

Just so you know, we're not talking about a nuclear bomb here.
And they did find some chemical weapons that would have done a number on an American city if they got in the wrong hands.

But come on, why would a great guy like Saddam ever give them to someone who would kill Americans

Spence posted some valuable info on this somewhere. Instead of using Snope for now on, search Spence.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

IMO it's all of the above.

Just so you know, we're not talking about a nuclear bomb here.
And they did find some chemical weapons that would have done a number on an American city if they got in the wrong hands.

But come on, why would a great guy like Saddam ever give them to someone who would kill Americans

Spence posted some valuable info on this somewhere. Instead of using Snope for now on, search Spence.

You're right. Why would Saddam do that? Although, he probably wouldn't There is more terrorism in Iraq today than there was 8 years ago. Saddam wasn't a terrorist, he was a vile, dictator. His goals were to increase his power, not attack America any way possible. You seem to have bought into the propaganda. We have the absolute best intelligence agencies in the world and you're telling me that they were able to track the detailed operations going on inside specific buildings but then couldn't track warehouses full of weapons and weapon-making materials being transported?

The whole WMD excuse is still a joke.