PDA

View Full Version : Kerry cries to the swift boat anti Kerry leader



Nuku_Unu
24th August 04, 12:02 PM
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc98.htm

KERRY PHONES SWIFT BOAT FOES

**World Exclusive**

Dem presidential hopeful John Kerry personally phoned anti-Kerry swift boat vets, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Kerry reached out to Robert "Friar Tuck" Brant Cdr., USN (RET) Sunday night, just hours after former Sen. Bob Dole publicly challenged Kerry to apologize to veterans.

Brant was skipper of the #96 and # 36 boat and spent time with Kerry in An Thoi. Kerry and Brant slept in the same quarters, and Brant used to put Kerry back to bed at night when Kerry was sleepwalking.

Brant received a call from Kerry at his home in Virginia while he was watching the Olympics on TV.

The call lasted 10 minutes, sources tell DRUDGE.

KERRY: "Why are all these swift boat guys opposed to me?"

BRANT: "You should know what you said when you came back, the impact it had on the young sailors and how it was disrespectful of our guys that were killed over there."

[Brant had two men killed in battle.]

KERRY: "When we dedicated swift boat one in '92, I said to all the swift guys that I wasn't talking about the swifties, I was talking about all the rest of the veterans."

Kerry then asked if he could meet Brant ["You were one of the best"] -- man to man -- face to face.

Brant declined the invite, explaining that Kerry was obviously not prepared to correct the record on exactly what happened during Vietnam and what happened when Kerry came back.


In other words Kerry called and cried "why are you guys picking on me?""Please stop!" WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,, ya there is a strong leader.

Antec
24th August 04, 12:27 PM
Put this in one of your other anti Kerry threads

Nuku_Unu
24th August 04, 12:29 PM
Put this in one of your other anti Kerry threads
This is completely different why should they be combined except for the fact that liberals want to bury this type of information.

Antec
24th August 04, 12:33 PM
Cause when i come back tonight the front page is gonna be completely filled with anti kerry bullshit.

If your so big into keeping bush as president then why not go out and make a sign and go march around city hall, subway or something? Whining like a little fucking bitch on a message board that 10 people check every now and then isnt gonna do anything

joen00b
24th August 04, 12:34 PM
Can you say DOH!

Bush says he has nothing to do with the Swift Boat folks...

Oops! (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/24/1354227)

On the campaign front, President Bush yesterday refused to specifically denounce controversial ads by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that question John Kerry's military service in Vietnam. Instead Bush called for an end to all independent-funded or so-called 527 ads. Meanwhile new links between the Swift Boat Veterans and the Bush campaign have emerged. The Dallas Morning News reports the chief funder of the Swift Boat Veterans, Bob Perry is co-hosting a fundraiser in New York next where President Bush, Karl Rove, and Tom DeLay are all scheduled to attend.

Nuku_Unu
24th August 04, 12:41 PM
Cause when i come back tonight the front page is gonna be completely filled with anti kerry bullshit.

If your so big into keeping bush as president then why not go out and make a sign and go march around city hall, subway or something? Whining like a little fucking bitch on a message board that 10 people check every now and then isnt gonna do anything
How do you know I don't already volunteer as a Bush supporter ya dork. sheesh think before speaking sometimes it helps you to not look like a fool. I see you follow other's doctrine around here when nothing intelligent to say you jump in the sand box and start calling names. There is a real mature post.

Nuku_Unu
24th August 04, 12:46 PM
Can you say DOH!

Bush says he has nothing to do with the Swift Boat folks...

Oops! (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/24/1354227)

On the campaign front, President Bush yesterday refused to specifically denounce controversial ads by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that question John Kerry's military service in Vietnam. Instead Bush called for an end to all independent-funded or so-called 527 ads. Meanwhile new links between the Swift Boat Veterans and the Bush campaign have emerged. The Dallas Morning News reports the chief funder of the Swift Boat Veterans, Bob Perry is co-hosting a fundraiser in New York next where President Bush, Karl Rove, and Tom DeLay are all scheduled to attend.Well two things here really. First its no oops, its common knowledge that a lot of the backing is coming from Texas for the swift boat commercials. Seeing that the Bush family is a powerful and wealthy family in Texas I'm sure you can draw dotted line connections to the Bush family for a lot of things.

Secondly Bush wants to stop all slush fund ads isn't that the same as denouncing the anti Kerry swift boat ads plus more? So how is that bad? hmm don't think so.

So your doh is more like Dah!

joen00b
24th August 04, 02:58 PM
Now that I actually read the dreck report you posted, you're revisionist history is quite insightful.

At least he was man enough to call in the first place. Oh, you poor misguided child.

Chantress
24th August 04, 03:36 PM
Can you say DOH!

Bush says he has nothing to do with the Swift Boat folks...

Oops! (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/24/1354227)

On the campaign front, President Bush yesterday refused to specifically denounce controversial ads by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that question John Kerry's military service in Vietnam. Instead Bush called for an end to all independent-funded or so-called 527 ads. Meanwhile new links between the Swift Boat Veterans and the Bush campaign have emerged. The Dallas Morning News reports the chief funder of the Swift Boat Veterans, Bob Perry is co-hosting a fundraiser in New York next where President Bush, Karl Rove, and Tom DeLay are all scheduled to attend.

Bob Perry is the President oF Perry Homes. A Houston Home building company. He supports both the Bush campaign and the SBVFTT. Im not current on all the election laws, but I dont think there is anything wrong with giving money to both efforts. It is his money, he can spend it how he chooses.

joen00b
24th August 04, 04:12 PM
True, but he's also personal friends with the President and the President was stating he had nothing to do with these ads. Bush is smart, he's working the whole network to get his dirty jobs done.

But, you are right. He says from now on the candidates shouldn't be taking 'soft money' from the 527, but he said this AFTER SWVfT founders donated 20 Million to his re-election campaign and are holding him a rally next month where he is going to make a personal appearance.

Hell, Bush isn't even goign to show up to the RNC, but he's going to these yahoo's rally?

Whatever.

imported_Solaris Flare
24th August 04, 04:17 PM
I didn't know confronting people who are bashing you publicly is called crying. I guess my definition of being a man differs from Nukus. Then again, I remember how bad Nuku cried back in the day on EoD's message board. Calling Kerry a baby is stupid. Seriously, come up with something smarter than that.

Kalric
24th August 04, 04:42 PM
The Bush Family are just a bunch of wannabe Texans. But hell, i dont think i want to see Kerry as our president, he seems soft on a lot of matters.

Thespis
24th August 04, 05:13 PM
Bush is smart, he's working the whole network to get his dirty jobs done.

Hehe, that statement alone from an anti-Bush / pro-Kerry individual is enough to make me vote for Bush. Kerry hasn't demonstrated having what it takes to "hang with the big dogs". How can we expect him to lead our country? People are naive if they think politicians play "fair and honorably". They have to work the system, and it is full of a bunch of bureaucratic crap. Even so, with all its flaws, it's still the best out there. There isn't much else feasible that we'd all agree to, hehe.

Sithray
24th August 04, 05:35 PM
If anything this is pro kerry as it proves that the swift boat veterans for truth are nothing more than a personal vendetta to slam kerry because of his post war stance.

joen00b
24th August 04, 05:36 PM
Yes! George is such a rock of stability! (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263)

vilesoul
24th August 04, 06:50 PM
Really both sides suck, but given dubya's track record so far, I'd rather have a weakling in office than a guy who seems to wage war with anything that blinks, then talks carp about anyone who disagrees with it. Really this got old when the "mobile WMD lab" was found, and discovered to be a mobile vehicle repair unit WE sold them...

..I'm sorry, but anyone who would to try to get us to believe something like that is a bit screwy. Then add in the rest and it's just that much worse.

I'd rather have a weakling than that.

Derreck
24th August 04, 06:58 PM
This is completely different why should they be combined except for the fact that liberals want to bury this type of information.
I spit OJ on my monitor when I read this. You're an idiot, sir. :)

Sithray
24th August 04, 11:57 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/24/veterans.group.ap/index.html

Looks like Joe is right and Nuku is wrong...again.

Nuku_Unu
25th August 04, 08:40 AM
I didn't know confronting people who are bashing you publicly is called crying. I guess my definition of being a man differs from Nukus. Then again, I remember how bad Nuku cried back in the day on EoD's message board. Calling Kerry a baby is stupid. Seriously, come up with something smarter than that.
How could you read with all the different bosses cocks in your face all the time? Your right in one thing our definitions are different men don't suck other mens cocks like you did. The only time you stopped was when you begged for gear.

Nuku_Unu
25th August 04, 08:42 AM
I spit OJ on my monitor when I read this. You're an idiot, sir. :)
Oh this coming from the idiot that was with Kela and then was broken hearted. Dude nothing anyone does or say can ever be more stupid then that.

Nuku_Unu
25th August 04, 08:49 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/24/veterans.group.ap/index.html

Looks like Joe is right and Nuku is wrong...again.
Dam your stupid how am I wrong. I said there would be dotted lines. What do you think there is only one lawyer I'm sure there is a large team hence the dotted line connection for President Bush's campaign. Like lawyers are so creditable they will take anyones money.

Merauk
25th August 04, 09:08 AM
The entire part of this controversy I find interesting is the radio talk show portion of it. Whenever any caller rings in with his two cents and mentions he served, the host thanks him passionately for his service to his country and calls him a hero. Yet John Kerry is not afforded the same courtesy and is called a traitor and a liar instead.

Almost all the alegations by the Swift Boat guys have been debunked with the exception of the Cambodia statement which I will write off as an exageration on Kerry's part.

How anyone on the right can say Kerry is fuck nutted lying pussy who didn't really serve and then turn around and talk about Cheny (who said he had other priorities then going to Vietnam) being a true American patriot is beyond me. That is just logic be clouded by ideology.

vilesoul
25th August 04, 09:22 AM
Dude nothing anyone does or say can ever be more stupid then that.
I can be.....http://cazic-thule.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5561

imported_Solaris Flare
25th August 04, 01:18 PM
How could you read with all the different bosses cocks in your face all the time? Your right in one thing our definitions are different men don't suck other mens cocks like you did. The only time you stopped was when you begged for gear.

Just tell me how confronting those people makes him less a man? (WITHOUT SAYING COCK/SUCKING)

Thespis
25th August 04, 02:11 PM
Yes! George is such a rock of stability! (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263)

I never claimed Bush was a rock of stability. I was referring to the pro-Kerry proponent admitting that Bush is smart. However, a lot of those trumped up "examples" of his supposed inconsistency are merely playing on words and not contradictions, but that is typical with politics and media. For one, people are human and free to simply change their mind on an issue, especially when there are plenty of examples of consistency and sticking to certain stances on various issues.

Take this "example" for instance...

22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]
............
Bush's statement that you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when talking about the war on terror has nothing to do with Saddam being or not being involved in the 9/11 stuff. The USA was motivated to declare war on terror, worldwide. This has many fronts in many places around the world. Whether or not two "terror" regimes are connected or not doesn't matter. They all got put in our gun sights whether connected or not and deservedly so. Saddam was long overdue for some asskicking. The USA was simply finally motivated to stop worrying about how well it was received and "get'er'done". Yes war sucks, and some of the negative effects are very unfortunate. That's when you have to weigh out what's worse, suffering some of the negative side effects of the war, or continuing to allow terror inspired dictatorships to torment the citizens of the country it should be protecting.

joen00b
25th August 04, 04:17 PM
What I'm hearing you say is: the common misconception is that the War On Terror is it is against the Terrorists of all lands, not just the ones attacking America.

I weigh the options as such:

Saddam has done dick and squat to America. People bring up resolutions the he ignored, well, those were UN Resolutions. The UN should have handled that problem. The UN told him to disarm. Thus far in our 'liberation' and hostile occupation of Iraq, we've found nothing. We have Right Wing news soutces pointing out anything as a means to attach to the war, be it the WMD's, which is the reason we initially went there, to terrorizing his own people, which is what we are saying now, and all the fallacies in between that weren't getting the popularity polls to rise.

We've used at least a dozen reasons to invade Iraq, and depending on which way the political wind blows is what we choose this week. Ari Fleischer retired from his position because of this. No one can get up there and say these things with the knowledge they have and keep a clean conscience. he knows infinitely more than us peons, and he chose to back out of this mess.

In the end, whatever the reason for being in Iraq, we are not fighting the terrorists that attacked us. This would be me punching a random person in the head if someone stepped on my foot. It's non-sensical! There is no link between Saddam, Terrorism, and the United States. You may be able to link two of them together in any way you see fit: Saddam and US OR Saddam and Terrorism, OR US and Terrorism, but not all three together, as they don't go together.

Derreck
25th August 04, 07:16 PM
Oh this coming from the idiot that was with Kela and then was broken hearted. Dude nothing anyone does or say can ever be more stupid then that.
That comeback was so fucking weak. Don't feel obligated to post one if it's just going to be lame. If you hadn't, I'm sure everyone here woulda been like, "Nuku's got nothin. That's ok, it's better than reading a pathetic retort like KEKEKE YOU DATED KELA BEFORE I COULD OMG ROOFLES."

And if I was bummed out about the end of our relationship... I missed it.

Halfrican
25th August 04, 08:25 PM
I think I had an opinion on this topic, but I forgot. How are you guys? Wait fuck you guys.

Thespis
25th August 04, 10:03 PM
joe, my point wasn't that Saddam has malice aimed at the USA. Although, I have no doubt that he has contributed. The point is that the USA seeks to protect the human right to freedom for ALL people whenever possible. I'm not going to point out the well documented attrocities Saddam has committed. You can check up on those yourself if you like. Saddam IS a terrorist. Whatever connection he does or doesn't have to the USA is not relevant unless you are a nationalistic isolationist who thinks we should only protect our own. We aren't seeking to only root out terrorists who've targeted us. As for Osama, the Taliban has been removed from power, and an Afghan woman was permitted by the new regime to participate in the Olympics for the first time in their history. Well worth it as far as I'm concerned.

joen00b
25th August 04, 10:05 PM
I now play my Hypocrite card: North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia.

Admit it, we were just bullying a little country.

Chantress
25th August 04, 11:40 PM
I now play my Hypocrite card: North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia.

Admit it, we were just bullying a little country.

Technically we were finishing a war that he violated the cease fire of and whacking some terrorist training camps as a bonus. There was never a formal end to the first Gulf War as I recall. He violated his negotiated peace, the peace was canceled, we kicked his butt, SCOREBOARD!

joen00b
25th August 04, 11:57 PM
The resolutions were imposed by the UN, hence, it is the UN's problem to deal with NOT Americas.

Chantress
26th August 04, 12:00 AM
We were a participating party. We have every right to go in and finish what we started, especially if the UN decides to lack the courage of its convictions.

vilesoul
26th August 04, 12:03 AM
not really, if the US was an employee for an imaginary company the UN represented, we would have been fired. Basically we decided to rule for the UN on this, so this was our war, not a UN war, and we have no right to even say it was. if you go out on your own to do something, then the responsibility will only go on one pair of shoulders, to offload any of it is cowardly at the least. GW should at least have the balls to say he just wanted an excuse to finish the war his father started.

the difference here is we merely have bigger guns than the rest of the UN's forces.

joen00b
26th August 04, 12:04 AM
It was their decision to not go in, that's why Bush, who at first asked them to do something and they didn't, reversed his decision to ask the UN for help and brought us into the fight.

Again, he had made no aggressive moves on America. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, North Korea have all taken hostile stances towards America and it's allies, 2 of these countries have straight told us to go fuck ourselves if we think we're going to try to disarm them or check up on their status.

So, not only did we start a war, that was laughably terminated early, and are now hostily occupting the country with a puppet government of our own creation, but we're doing nothing to the countries threatening us.

We look like pussies to the rest of the world. We kicked the hell out of the slow kid in the class, asked who else wants a piece, two people stand up and we act like we didn't hear them.

Yeah, great job! WOOHOO! Roll out the air craft carriers again for more photo ops!

Chantress
26th August 04, 12:08 AM
It was their decision to not go in, that's why Bush, who at first asked them to do something and they didn't, reversed his decision to ask the UN for help and brought us into the fight.

Again, he had made no aggressive moves on America. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, North Korea have all taken hostile stances towards America and it's allies, 2 of these countries have straight told us to go fuck ourselves if we think we're going to try to disarm them or check up on their status.

So, not only did we start a war, that was laughably terminated early, and are now hostily occupting the country with a puppet government of our own creation, but we're doing nothing to the countries threatening us.

We look like pussies to the rest of the world. We kicked the hell out of the slow kid in the class, asked who else wants a piece, two people stand up and we act like we didn't hear them.

Yeah, great job! WOOHOO! Roll out the air craft carriers again for more photo ops!


NO agressive moves? Training terrorists how to take over 747s is not agressive? Rewarding families of suicide bomers against our allies is not agressive? Putting out a contract to have a President of hte United States assasinated is not agressive? Developing WMDs and talking to the Koreans abot long range delivery systems is not agressive? I think you and I must have VERY different definitions of agressive.

joen00b
26th August 04, 12:15 AM
Ok, once again, he did not train any terrorists, they have not proven there were any training grounds in Iraq, and in fact, the terrorists were trained in America, specifically Florida. I guess that makes George and Jeb Bush responsible for the 9/11 atrocity.

That is the logic you're using. We've proven they were trained in Florida, America. That makes our leader at fault for the actions of the people within the country. Your logic, not mine.

And as for the WMD's, where are they? He was developing Bio-Chem weapons from the plans we gavve him. Us. The Americans. We armed him with them to use against Iran. So, once again, we're at fault for him.

Let's do a tally here:

Ronald Reagan: Guilty for Osama bin Laden.
George W. Bush: Guilty for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
George H.W. Bush: Responsible for 9/11
Jeb Bush: Responsible for 9/11

Faulty logic that you're trying to twist to better your argument. But those are the facts. Where's your Kryptonite now, Lex?

Chantress
26th August 04, 12:20 AM
Who needs Kryptonite....you didnt refute a single thing regarding his agression. Inability to find something does not mean it does or did not exist. You cant "find" God, but from our conversations you believe he exists. The faulty logic is the conclusion that he never had WMD just because tehy can not be found. Iraq is no small country. For all we know they could be buried, shipped to Syria, totally dismantled. Lord knows we gave the guy enough lead time to dispose of them. What i said about Bin Laden in the other thread would apply here as well. You dont keep the dog alive that bit your kid, you kill it.

joen00b
26th August 04, 09:43 AM
I can prove Bush is much more aggressive than Saddam. All you need to do is read the news of the last three years. He has been rash, braggardly, obstinate and downright childlike in his attempts to get this war started on false pretenses.

As for shipping the weapons to Syria, where's the proof? Where's the pictures? My theory that they never existed is just as strong as your point of them being shipped somewhere because neither of us have proof. The inability to find them makes both our arguments equal in this manner.

As for bin Laden, we've had him on the Top Ten Most Wanted for over a decade. Even after he attacked the WTC the first time, we didn't go after him. After he did it the second time, we spray bullets all over Afghanistan, where we know he is, and then invaded Iraq. Iraq was a distraction to take the focus off our inability to find and squash out AQ.

Ya know what I find funny? As soon as Communist Russia fell, and we had no more enemy to work against, no more great evil to align ourselves against, we go after our old buddy, our old business partner Saddam Hussein. America NEEDS something to align itself against. The War On Terror is the perfect thing. We know they're out there, we know they're in here, we know they will someday attack, but we don't know when or where.

The War On Terror is the Boogieman. It's used to keep us in line, make us paranoid, make us turn in our fellow neighbor, and with Bush pushing through the Socialist Act... erm, the Patriot Act, that's used to protect the Fatherland... erm the Homeland, we have the perfect environment to breed racial hatred, paranoia, and a whole nation of 'better than you' atmosphere is propogated to the rest of the world.

Seriously, this whole war is a mess and it's NOT for the reasons we've been told.

Phrost
26th August 04, 10:17 AM
Joe, take off the tinfoil hat.

A. The world is more complicated than "OMG U hav 2 fight ALL t3rroristz regims if ur gonna go aftur 1".

You're not stupid, so I'm going to assume you're at least marginally aware of the reasons why we haven't gone after North Korea (...DUH CHINA).

B. We're coming off the Cold War. In war, especially one fought asymetrically as the fight against communism was, you not only make mistakes, but you end up doing a lot of 'the enemy of my enemy...'. Hence Bin Laden/Mujahadeen support.

C. EVERY MAJOR INTELLIGENCE AGENCY said Saddam had the WMD. So why is the Bush administration the one taking sole blame, and being blamed for concocting the evidence?

Come on now, you're not even being reasonable. You're just mindlessly, uncritically regurgitating leftist talking points. Think for a second man, shit's nowhere near as simple as you'd like to make it out to be.

Merauk
26th August 04, 10:41 AM
C. EVERY MAJOR INTELLIGENCE AGENCY said Saddam had the WMD. So why is the Bush administration the one taking sole blame, and being blamed for concocting the evidence?

The reason why the Bush Administration is taking heat is they refuse to budge an inch on any form of culpability. Whenever they are asked if you knew then what you know now would you have done the same thing, and every time the answer is emphatically yes. They still havenít even stated that there is no WMD insisting they will find it.

JFK made what in my opinion was the most brilliant press conference ever after The Bay of Pigs. The press who was much nicer then, then they are today was asking in a round about way who was to blame. Kennedy looked back at the reporter and said are you asking me who is to blame, the answer is simple me. I am the President and buck stops here, I am responsible and I take full responsibility (paraphrased though he did use the buck stops here phrase which I find to be cool).

If the good Christian he is had practiced one of the most important teachings of Jesus, which is humility, world opinion and a lot of US opinion of him would have been different.

Phrost
26th August 04, 11:22 AM
Come on now, they have to be somewhere. You really think Saddam destroyed them AFTER he kicked out the inspectors?

Is that what you're trying to say?

joen00b
26th August 04, 11:37 AM
Should I break out the quote of George saying he trusted his Inspector to the end and he says there are no WND's they are not there! This is what Bush said 1 year before launching the attack.

We've also proven that all the 'intelligence' they gathered was false, it was embellished and not trustworthy. Add in all the defectors from high up in Saddam's Regime telling our intelligence people that he destroyed them all, and we have a full on WTF!?!?! going on.

Seriously, I understand where your coming from, and I'm conceding on points of responsibility of creation of the people involved, but in all fairness, Bush did not have the right to declare war on Iraq. He used heightened emotions and irrational behavior coupled with tendered reports of what he wanted to hear to start the war. Once it all started to come apart at the seams, we found out it was lies, and the administration started backpedaling hard. The only problem was, we were commited to this course of action. We got her panties around her ankles, her bra unclasped and a condom unwrapped, we're going in no matter what!

The administration knew what they were doing, by the time anyone was the wiser, we'd be hip deep in shit and couldn't walk away from it. That's when the whisperings of: 'Might as well finish what we came to do, it's too late to stop now' started circulating. These days, the coverage of Iraq is near nil. Fox News doesn't even talk about it anymore, they're too busy talking about Swift Boats and the people that road in them, and the EXACT where abouts of Senator Kerry at 7:35 PM Christmas 1968 and where the borders of Vietnam and Cambodia are at exactly then AND now.

It's become quite a farce at this point, but we are brain dead Americans with the attention span of caffienne filled fruitflies. We'll have forgotten all this stuff by this time next year, but we'll remember JUST ENOUGH facts to sling mud at each other in these types of discussions.

Merauk
26th August 04, 12:52 PM
Come on now, they have to be somewhere. You really think Saddam destroyed them AFTER he kicked out the inspectors?

Is that what you're trying to say?

We never had an entirely accurate accounting of what he had in the first place. There was always an assumption (which I think most people believe was now false) that suspected stockpiles remained unaccounted for (or were created between inspection periods in the 90's), there was never any case of these missing stockpiles actually being seen (what we saw we destroyed).

Saddam is a guy who had a real knack for entirely misreading a political situation. It wouldn't suprise me in the least that he got rid of his WMD before/after/during the inspectors, if he actually had any after then end of the first Gulf war. To a logical person that obviously doesn't make sense, but again Saddam wasn't a very logical person in any of his decisions.