Bush and Officials Lied leading up to Iraq war

[jreeves]

See this shows....
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

Even when faced with reality you turn a blind eye....LOL

 

[jillian]

World Net Daily? lol...

I'd suggest actually reading the Duelfer report... Hans Blix's final report, too.

 

[jreeves]

World Net Daily? lol...

I'd suggest actually reading the Duelfer report... Hans Blix's final report, too.

I pose the same questions to you??

 

[jillian]

I pose the same questions to you??

I've been reading your ridiculousness. You've already been taken to school. I really can't be bothered.

Carry on, though.

 

[maineman]

I pose the same questions to you??

she's given you two more concrete things to read. Blix...Duelfer...on top of PNAC.

and you give us worldnet daily?

you are one funny motherfucker!


g'nite!

 

[jreeves]

If you are capable of reading, it answers your question completely....

but then, I have no knowledge of your ability to read for comprehension.

http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2005/11/new_column_a_ma.html

 

[jreeves]

she's given you two more concrete things to read. Blix...Duelfer...on top of PNAC.

and you give us worldnet daily?

you are one funny motherfucker!


g'nite!

Think for yourself then, answer the two questions I posed??

 

[jreeves]

the world's intelligence communities THOUGHT that saddam might have WMD's....
only Bush told us that their existence was an absolute certainty.

Only Bush made the case that Saddam had been in cahoots with Al Qaeda BEFORE 9/11 and therefore was primed to give THEM the WMD's that certainly existed... both the connection and the certainty were LIES and misled us into war.

Sorry, can't stand for BS, Bush denied there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq...but weren't you just saying Bush invaded Iraq because of 9/11...The Gump post...How easily we forget...LOL

 

[jreeves]

I've been reading your ridiculousness. You've already been taken to school. I really can't be bothered.

Carry on, though.

You must agree with calling people bitches, sodomizers and other such BS because you are liberal too huh....funny...LOL Like I said a liberalistic agenda

 

[maineman]

Sorry, can't stand for BS, Bush denied there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq...but weren't you just saying Bush invaded Iraq because of 9/11...The Gump post...How easily we forget...LOL

Cheney clearly and unambiguously made the connection between Iraqi intelligence and Atta supposedly BEFORE 9/11. That is fact. not BS.

try again

 

[jreeves]

Cheney clearly and unambiguously made the connection between Iraqi intelligence and Atta supposedly BEFORE 9/11. That is fact. not BS.

try again

No motive and I have proved through the previous post that the world believed that Iraq had WMDS...

 

[jillian]

You must agree with calling people bitches, sodomizers and other such BS because you are liberal too huh....funny...LOL Like I said a liberalistic agenda

Where did you ever see me post to anyone using those terms?

But now you understand why I wouldn't bother "debating" with you.

 

[Dr Grump]

Sorry, can't stand for BS, Bush denied there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq...but weren't you just saying Bush invaded Iraq because of 9/11...The Gump post...How easily we forget...LOL

YOu never answered my post 975..this after all your babbling about people not answering yours!

You babble on about libs this, libs that etc, but it's always the Conservatives who start with the name calling. Must be because, at heart, they are still school kids..

 

[jreeves]

Where did you ever see me post to anyone using those terms?

But now you understand why I wouldn't bother "debating" with you.

Well at least you don't support those comments. Thanks

 

[jreeves]

YOu never answered my post 975..this after all your babbling about people not answering yours!

You babble on about libs this, libs that etc, but it's always the Conservatives who start with the name calling. Must be because, at heart, they are still school kids..

Actually I think if you go through my posts...I have tried to refrain from name calling as it is not issue oriented....I will look at 975 now though one sec....

 

[jillian]

Well at least you don't support those comments. Thanks

We've all got our own styles.

 

[jreeves]

1) Who said it was about giving oil to America? It's more about ensuring a stable supply and stable oil prices.
2) No, there was no connection re 9-11 and Iraq, but that didn't stop Cheney et al giving out the perception there was a connection.
3) Because 9-11 hadn't happened and it took him a while to get the coalition together.But once it was set, in he went.
As for number two, Cheney has on several occasions tried to make the link. It has been documented on a number of occasions on this board. Not about to do it yet AGAIN for a newbie. Either do a google or do a thread search..

Thing is Jeeves, Obama wouldn't have gone in the first place...

Didn't know this was a question, but ok. #1 , We couldn't have done that by say invading a country without terrorist, like say Venezuela. #2 No wait you said that the reason Bush invaded Iraq was because of 9/11 right...so what are you saying now?? #3 But previous posters said there was no coalition to amount to anything.....

As far as my second question...you completely missed it, if Bush misled America, how did he get most of the World's intelligence community to say Saddam had WMD's??

 

[steeliniraq]

Its funny in a way. Republicans send their military to war to benefit the nation in their eyes. They always benefit themselves off it may I point out. Democrats send the military to war for other reasons. Humanitarian, peace keeping. LOL I hear a lot of people on here crying that the republicans lied. I hear the democrats lied too. Dont they all lie? People, democrat and republican, lie to get what they need and/or want. What I dont hear a lot of is what do we do now. Can we actually have an intelligent conversation/debate on how we can be successful in Iraq and then get out?

 

[Dr Grump]

Didn't know this was a question, but ok. #1 , We couldn't have done that by say invading a country without terrorist, like say Venezuela. #2 No wait you said that the reason Bush invaded Iraq was because of 9/11 right...so what are you saying now?? #3 But previous posters said there was no coalition to amount to anything.....

As far as my second question...you completely missed it, if Bush misled America, how did he get most of the World's intelligence community to say Saddam had WMD's??

It may not have been written in question format, but I thought it would at least illicit a response of some sort considering you seem so hot on the topic.

1) No, because there was no history with Venezuela. There was with Saddam. And Iraq was a dictatorship (which gave Bush et al "free the oppressed" excuse, too). Venezuala is not a dictatorship, nor has Chevez committed the atrocities that Sadman did.

2) Yes, 9-11 was one of the excuses used via perception (as opposed to outright saying it) to invade Iraq.

3) Please list the information these "world" intelligence communities had. Name the organisations and their specific information. And you missed my point. As far as I can tell the information the "world" collected could have been from the same source. The fact the "world" wasn't involved in the coalition of the willing suggests that maybe the info was flawed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

go back and read what I said, and what I have only said all along - bitch - and you will see that I have said - ALL ALONG - that a majority of democrats IN CONGRESS voted against the measure. Now, do you want to bet that I am wrong about THAT, or do you want to crawl under a fucking rock and hide - or do you want to admit that I am right. TAKE YOUR FUCKING PICK - BITCH. I'll wait.

Ask yourself again..what does the fucking word CONGRESS really mean....bitch.

Remind us again how you deplore name calling and insults.