Colin Powell Exposed!

[NYcarbineer]

If the sort of people who support people like Dick Cheney want to purge the GOP of the sort of people who support people like Colin Powell,

I'm sure the Democrats will do their best to find room in their tent for the latter.

How about a new party?

A new party in the center would be good, in my opinion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Powell lied as is clear, or at least his words were not true. If the information upon which he based his words was false or phony, the lie would not truly be his. I find it a little hard to believe he didn't know, but at least, as someone said, he has done penance in admitting the wrong.

Not many people have made as much of a contribution to America as he. A few much more, but his is still up there. I think he is trusted in the public mind. He would be a strong candidate in '16.

He still turned out to be a race baiting bigot.

Here's a suggestion:

Based on the poor performance of Chuck Hagel, if Obama withdraws the nomination of Hagel....

....and, instead, names Colin Powell as nominee for Sec'y of Defense...

...betcha it would be unanimous approval.

 

[Gadawg73]

Powell lied as is clear, or at least his words were not true. If the information upon which he based his words was false or phony, the lie would not truly be his. I find it a little hard to believe he didn't know, but at least, as someone said, he has done penance in admitting the wrong.

Not many people have made as much of a contribution to America as he. A few much more, but his is still up there. I think he is trusted in the public mind. He would be a strong candidate in '16.

He still turned out to be a race baiting bigot.

Here's a suggestion:

Based on the poor performance of Chuck Hagel, if Obama withdraws the nomination of Hagel....

....and, instead, names Colin Powell as nominee for Sec'y of Defense...

...betcha it would be unanimous approval.

Having numerous Viet Nam combat veteran friends and a few that came back in boxes I actually felt sorry for Hagel.
But you missed it with your "poor" performance.
More like pitiful performance and I mean that not in a "I feel sorry for him" way.
I could understand Bob McNamara being picked by JFK and then working under Johnson but Mac was the #1 business executive in America at that time and was a decorated WWII vet. He understood the military logistics.
Hagel was awful. He looks haggard and spent not to mention his policy views are not what I would like.
Spot on with Powell but no way he works again in government.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

As for Powell, he is obviously a highly intelligent individual, eloquent speaker and seems clear of scandal. While it could be called scandalous that he presented a totally false case to the UN in the lead-up to the immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq, that was perhaps done in ignorance on his part. It could also help explain his disenchantment with the party associated with that President and that deception.

I respectfully suggest you are somewhat naive in your assessment of this treacherous bastard. He knew perfectly well what he was doing when he went before the UN and lied to the world about Saddam Hussein's military capabilities. After all it was he, as Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, who orchestrated the destruction of Hussin's army at the conclusion of the Desert Storm operation. And as Secretary of State who had more access to intelligence than he about Hussein's military capabilities.

The fact is Iraq was a broken and virtually defenseless nation when Powell presented his props, lied to the world, and sent 5,800 of the soldiers who once trusted him to their deaths -- even after being told by General Eric Shinseki that such losses were inevitable.

Read what more knowledgeable sources than I have to say about Powell:

(Excerpt)

Let's just remember: Colin Powell is one of the major reasons we went to war in Iraq. In his 2003 United Nations speech, he perpetrated one of the biggest frauds in the history of international diplomacy - a deliberate and calculated fraud that, in terms of its blood-and-guts ramifications, dwarfs major scandals like Watergate. Sure, there were certainly other Bush officials who helped get us into war. But to deny that Colin Powell was a major factor in sending us into a war based on lies is to quite literally deny that the sky is blue.

David Sirota: A Reminder About Colin Powell...

(Close)

Colin Powell was George W. Bush's house ****** and he did what his master told him to do. And I believe it was his fraudulent testimony, above any other factor, which convinced the Congress to approve the Iraq invasion.

 

[Gadawg73]

[...]

As for Powell, he is obviously a highly intelligent individual, eloquent speaker and seems clear of scandal. While it could be called scandalous that he presented a totally false case to the UN in the lead-up to the immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq, that was perhaps done in ignorance on his part. It could also help explain his disenchantment with the party associated with that President and that deception.

I respectfully suggest you are somewhat naive in your assessment of this treacherous bastard. He knew perfectly well what he was doing when he went before the UN and lied to the world about Saddam Hussein's military capabilities. After all it was he, as Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, who orchestrated the destruction of Hussin's army at the conclusion of the Desert Storm operation. And as Secretary of State who had more access to intelligence than he about Hussein's military capabilities.

The fact is Iraq was a broken and virtually defenseless nation when Powell presented his props, lied to the world, and sent 5,800 of the soldiers who once trusted him to their deaths -- even after being told by General Eric Shinseki that such losses were inevitable.

Read what more knowledgeable sources than I have to say about Powell:

(Excerpt)

Let's just remember: Colin Powell is one of the major reasons we went to war in Iraq. In his 2003 United Nations speech, he perpetrated one of the biggest frauds in the history of international diplomacy - a deliberate and calculated fraud that, in terms of its blood-and-guts ramifications, dwarfs major scandals like Watergate. Sure, there were certainly other Bush officials who helped get us into war. But to deny that Colin Powell was a major factor in sending us into a war based on lies is to quite literally deny that the sky is blue.

David Sirota: A Reminder About Colin Powell...

(Close)

Colin Powell was George W. Bush's house ****** and he did what his master told him to do. And I believe it was his fraudulent testimony, above any other factor, which convinced the Congress to approve the Iraq invasion.

Then why was Powell so angry at the Bush administration when they finally found out months after the fact that the yellow cake was not in Iraq?
HE felt betrayed by Bush and subsequently did when his advice was not taken when the CPA was formed and General Garner was dismissed over Powell's objections and Bremer was put in his place.
Powell advised the Bush administration time and time again to listen to the military commanders on the ground and Bush would not.
Your "facts" do not add up.
David Sirota is a left wing liberal hack.

 

[MikeK]

Powell lied as is clear, or at least his words were not true. If the information upon which he based his words was false or phony, the lie would not truly be his. I find it a little hard to believe he didn't know, but at least, as someone said, he has done penance in admitting the wrong.

Not many people have made as much of a contribution to America as he. A few much more, but his is still up there. I think he is trusted in the public mind. He would be a strong candidate in '16.

He still turned out to be a race baiting bigot.

Here's a suggestion:

Based on the poor performance of Chuck Hagel, if Obama withdraws the nomination of Hagel....

....and, instead, names Colin Powell as nominee for Sec'y of Defense...

...betcha it would be unanimous approval.

I strongly doubt Obama would be stupid enough to nominate a sonofabitch like Colin Powell because to do that would turn the spotlight onto the stigma which has driven this slimy character into the political shadows and kept him there for so long.

Not only was Powell in as good if not better a position to know that Hussein couldn't possibly have had any so-called weapons of mass destruction, he was told by General Eric Shinseki, who flatly refused to participate in the Iraq invasion and was forced to resign, that no less then 200,000 more troops would be needed for that operation to prevent significant losses and injuries, such as the 5,800 deaths and thousands more cripplings it eventally cost.

Like the snake he is, Powell has been poking his ugly head up now and then to test the weather and so far the majority of Americans have been too naive, too stupid, or too complacent, to confront him with his egregious betrayal.

To appoint this archetypal political whore as Secretary of Defense would create a monumental shitstorm which Obama is far too smart to risk.

 

[there4eyeM]

Powell lied as is clear, or at least his words were not true. If the information upon which he based his words was false or phony, the lie would not truly be his. I find it a little hard to believe he didn't know, but at least, as someone said, he has done penance in admitting the wrong.

Not many people have made as much of a contribution to America as he. A few much more, but his is still up there. I think he is trusted in the public mind. He would be a strong candidate in '16.

He still turned out to be a race baiting bigot.

Here's a suggestion:

Based on the poor performance of Chuck Hagel, if Obama withdraws the nomination of Hagel....

....and, instead, names Colin Powell as nominee for Sec'y of Defense...

...betcha it would be unanimous approval.

Agreed.

 

[MikeK]

[...]Then why was Powell so angry at the Bush administration when they finally found out months after the fact that the yellow cake was not in Iraq?

I'm not at all surprised you were taken in by that performance, which was Powell's public response to having the covers pulled off him.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[...]

As for Powell, he is obviously a highly intelligent individual, eloquent speaker and seems clear of scandal. While it could be called scandalous that he presented a totally false case to the UN in the lead-up to the immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq, that was perhaps done in ignorance on his part. It could also help explain his disenchantment with the party associated with that President and that deception.

I respectfully suggest you are somewhat naive in your assessment of this treacherous bastard. He knew perfectly well what he was doing when he went before the UN and lied to the world about Saddam Hussein's military capabilities. After all it was he, as Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, who orchestrated the destruction of Hussin's army at the conclusion of the Desert Storm operation. And as Secretary of State who had more access to intelligence than he about Hussein's military capabilities.

The fact is Iraq was a broken and virtually defenseless nation when Powell presented his props, lied to the world, and sent 5,800 of the soldiers who once trusted him to their deaths -- even after being told by General Eric Shinseki that such losses were inevitable.

Read what more knowledgeable sources than I have to say about Powell:

(Excerpt)

Let's just remember: Colin Powell is one of the major reasons we went to war in Iraq. In his 2003 United Nations speech, he perpetrated one of the biggest frauds in the history of international diplomacy - a deliberate and calculated fraud that, in terms of its blood-and-guts ramifications, dwarfs major scandals like Watergate. Sure, there were certainly other Bush officials who helped get us into war. But to deny that Colin Powell was a major factor in sending us into a war based on lies is to quite literally deny that the sky is blue.

David Sirota: A Reminder About Colin Powell...

(Close)

Colin Powell was George W. Bush's house ****** and he did what his master told him to do. And I believe it was his fraudulent testimony, above any other factor, which convinced the Congress to approve the Iraq invasion.

Then why was Powell so angry at the Bush administration when they finally found out months after the fact that the yellow cake was not in Iraq?
HE felt betrayed by Bush and subsequently did when his advice was not taken when the CPA was formed and General Garner was dismissed over Powell's objections and Bremer was put in his place.
Powell advised the Bush administration time and time again to listen to the military commanders on the ground and Bush would not.
Your "facts" do not add up.
David Sirota is a left wing liberal hack.

This might interest you:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/276410-obama-hagel-and-m-j-rosenberg.html

 

[Gadawg73]

I respectfully suggest you are somewhat naive in your assessment of this treacherous bastard. He knew perfectly well what he was doing when he went before the UN and lied to the world about Saddam Hussein's military capabilities. After all it was he, as Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, who orchestrated the destruction of Hussin's army at the conclusion of the Desert Storm operation. And as Secretary of State who had more access to intelligence than he about Hussein's military capabilities.

The fact is Iraq was a broken and virtually defenseless nation when Powell presented his props, lied to the world, and sent 5,800 of the soldiers who once trusted him to their deaths -- even after being told by General Eric Shinseki that such losses were inevitable.

Read what more knowledgeable sources than I have to say about Powell:

(Excerpt)

Let's just remember: Colin Powell is one of the major reasons we went to war in Iraq. In his 2003 United Nations speech, he perpetrated one of the biggest frauds in the history of international diplomacy - a deliberate and calculated fraud that, in terms of its blood-and-guts ramifications, dwarfs major scandals like Watergate. Sure, there were certainly other Bush officials who helped get us into war. But to deny that Colin Powell was a major factor in sending us into a war based on lies is to quite literally deny that the sky is blue.

David Sirota: A Reminder About Colin Powell...

(Close)

Colin Powell was George W. Bush's house ****** and he did what his master told him to do. And I believe it was his fraudulent testimony, above any other factor, which convinced the Congress to approve the Iraq invasion.

Then why was Powell so angry at the Bush administration when they finally found out months after the fact that the yellow cake was not in Iraq?
HE felt betrayed by Bush and subsequently did when his advice was not taken when the CPA was formed and General Garner was dismissed over Powell's objections and Bremer was put in his place.
Powell advised the Bush administration time and time again to listen to the military commanders on the ground and Bush would not.
Your "facts" do not add up.
David Sirota is a left wing liberal hack.

This might interest you:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/276410-obama-hagel-and-m-j-rosenberg.html

I vote NO on Hagel. Admire his service in the Nam but we can do better.

 

[Gadawg73]

[...]Then why was Powell so angry at the Bush administration when they finally found out months after the fact that the yellow cake was not in Iraq?

I'm not at all surprised you were taken in by that performance, which was Powell's public response to having the covers pulled off him.

Covers were not pulled off of him.
He exposed the failures of the Bush administration first.
Your eyes are clouded by your biased ideology.

 

[depotoo]

[...]

As for Powell, he is obviously a highly intelligent individual, eloquent speaker and seems clear of scandal. While it could be called scandalous that he presented a totally false case to the UN in the lead-up to the immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq, that was perhaps done in ignorance on his part. It could also help explain his disenchantment with the party associated with that President and that deception.

I respectfully suggest you are somewhat naive in your assessment of this treacherous bastard. He knew perfectly well what he was doing when he went before the UN and lied to the world about Saddam Hussein's military capabilities. After all it was he, as Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, who orchestrated the destruction of Hussin's army at the conclusion of the Desert Storm operation. And as Secretary of State who had more access to intelligence than he about Hussein's military capabilities.

The fact is Iraq was a broken and virtually defenseless nation when Powell presented his props, lied to the world, and sent 5,800 of the soldiers who once trusted him to their deaths -- even after being told by General Eric Shinseki that such losses were inevitable.

Read what more knowledgeable sources than I have to say about Powell:

(Excerpt)

Let's just remember: Colin Powell is one of the major reasons we went to war in Iraq. In his 2003 United Nations speech, he perpetrated one of the biggest frauds in the history of international diplomacy - a deliberate and calculated fraud that, in terms of its blood-and-guts ramifications, dwarfs major scandals like Watergate. Sure, there were certainly other Bush officials who helped get us into war. But to deny that Colin Powell was a major factor in sending us into a war based on lies is to quite literally deny that the sky is blue.

David Sirota: A Reminder About Colin Powell...

(Close)

Colin Powell was George W. Bush's house ****** and he did what his master told him to do. And I believe it was his fraudulent testimony, above any other factor, which convinced the Congress to approve the Iraq invasion.

Then why was Powell so angry at the Bush administration when they finally found out months after the fact that the yellow cake was not in Iraq?
HE felt betrayed by Bush and subsequently did when his advice was not taken when the CPA was formed and General Garner was dismissed over Powell's objections and Bremer was put in his place.
Powell advised the Bush administration time and time again to listen to the military commanders on the ground and Bush would not.
Your "facts" do not add up.
David Sirota is a left wing liberal hack.

by the way , yellow cake and more was in Iraq -

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" - the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

U.S. Secretly Takes Yellowcake From Iraq - CBS News

 

[Gadawg73]

I respectfully suggest you are somewhat naive in your assessment of this treacherous bastard. He knew perfectly well what he was doing when he went before the UN and lied to the world about Saddam Hussein's military capabilities. After all it was he, as Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, who orchestrated the destruction of Hussin's army at the conclusion of the Desert Storm operation. And as Secretary of State who had more access to intelligence than he about Hussein's military capabilities.

The fact is Iraq was a broken and virtually defenseless nation when Powell presented his props, lied to the world, and sent 5,800 of the soldiers who once trusted him to their deaths -- even after being told by General Eric Shinseki that such losses were inevitable.

Read what more knowledgeable sources than I have to say about Powell:

(Excerpt)

Let's just remember: Colin Powell is one of the major reasons we went to war in Iraq. In his 2003 United Nations speech, he perpetrated one of the biggest frauds in the history of international diplomacy - a deliberate and calculated fraud that, in terms of its blood-and-guts ramifications, dwarfs major scandals like Watergate. Sure, there were certainly other Bush officials who helped get us into war. But to deny that Colin Powell was a major factor in sending us into a war based on lies is to quite literally deny that the sky is blue.

David Sirota: A Reminder About Colin Powell...

(Close)

Colin Powell was George W. Bush's house ****** and he did what his master told him to do. And I believe it was his fraudulent testimony, above any other factor, which convinced the Congress to approve the Iraq invasion.

Then why was Powell so angry at the Bush administration when they finally found out months after the fact that the yellow cake was not in Iraq?
HE felt betrayed by Bush and subsequently did when his advice was not taken when the CPA was formed and General Garner was dismissed over Powell's objections and Bremer was put in his place.
Powell advised the Bush administration time and time again to listen to the military commanders on the ground and Bush would not.
Your "facts" do not add up.
David Sirota is a left wing liberal hack.

by the way , yellow cake and more was in Iraq -

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" - the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

U.S. Secretly Takes Yellowcake From Iraq - CBS News

Not the same type and not the same that Bush and Powell claimed was there coming from Niger in 2003.
Isreali war planes hit the reactor in 1981 and UN inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake which had been stored in aging drums since before the 1991 war.
We are speaking of the Nigerian yellowcake which was not the same as pre 1991 old cake.

There was no evidence of any yellowcake there from after 1991. The Bush/Powell announcement before the UN was false.

 

[depotoo]

Then why was Powell so angry at the Bush administration when they finally found out months after the fact that the yellow cake was not in Iraq?
HE felt betrayed by Bush and subsequently did when his advice was not taken when the CPA was formed and General Garner was dismissed over Powell's objections and Bremer was put in his place.
Powell advised the Bush administration time and time again to listen to the military commanders on the ground and Bush would not.
Your "facts" do not add up.
David Sirota is a left wing liberal hack.

by the way , yellow cake and more was in Iraq -

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" - the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

U.S. Secretly Takes Yellowcake From Iraq - CBS News

Not the same type and not the same that Bush and Powell claimed was there coming from Niger in 2003.
Isreali war planes hit the reactor in 1981 and UN inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake which had been stored in aging drums since before the 1991 war.
We are speaking of the Nigerian yellowcake which was not the same as pre 1991 old cake.

There was no evidence of any yellowcake there from after 1991. The Bush/Powell announcement before the UN was false.

Iraq also sought to mislead the IAEA, but IAEA inspectors were largely successful in obtaining a relatively complete picture of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program and dismantling it. The IAEA, which removed from Iraq all known fissile material that could be used to make weapons, reported in February 1999 that there were no indications that meaningful amounts of weapon-usable material remained in the country or that it possessed the physical capability to produce significant amounts of such material indigenously. But the IAEA cautioned that because nuclear weapons material or infrastructure could be hidden, it could not verify with absolute certainty that Iraq had no prohibited materials.

yet 550 tons of fissile material were there and Saddam was bribing inspectors.
Charles Duelfer (in the Duelfer Report) acknowledged Saddam had every intention of getting back into the WMD business as soon as he could end the sanctions regime, which he was busy doing with oil-for-food bribes, etc.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Charles Duelfer (in the Duelfer Report) acknowledged Saddam had every intention of getting back into the WMD business as soon as he could end the sanctions regime, which he was busy doing with oil-for-food bribes, etc."

This merely shows what anyone anywhere would do. Once the (fill in the blank space with the authority of your choice) stop(s) looking, one continues with secret desires.

All totalitarians want the same thing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Then why was Powell so angry at the Bush administration when they finally found out months after the fact that the yellow cake was not in Iraq?
HE felt betrayed by Bush and subsequently did when his advice was not taken when the CPA was formed and General Garner was dismissed over Powell's objections and Bremer was put in his place.
Powell advised the Bush administration time and time again to listen to the military commanders on the ground and Bush would not.
Your "facts" do not add up.
David Sirota is a left wing liberal hack.

by the way , yellow cake and more was in Iraq -

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" - the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

U.S. Secretly Takes Yellowcake From Iraq - CBS News

Not the same type and not the same that Bush and Powell claimed was there coming from Niger in 2003.
Isreali war planes hit the reactor in 1981 and UN inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake which had been stored in aging drums since before the 1991 war.
We are speaking of the Nigerian yellowcake which was not the same as pre 1991 old cake.

There was no evidence of any yellowcake there from after 1991. The Bush/Powell announcement before the UN was false.

1. All available intelligence data, from every nation that contributed same, as well Democrats such as President Clinton informed the policy.

Even Joe Wilson, who fabricated the NYTimes Op-Ed where he claimed there was no yellow cake connection, agreed that Iraq had sent agents for purchase in Chad, thus contributed to the data.

Data informs policy.


2. "The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain."
•A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
•Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger. "

FactCheck.org: Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html




3. "In its May 22, 2004 edition, the New York Times confirmed a myriad of reports on Saddam's nuclear fuel stockpile - and revealed a chilling detail unknown to weapons inspectors before the war: that Saddam had begun to partially enrich his uranium stash.

The Times noted:

"The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program, . . . . holds more than 500 tons of uranium . . . . Some 1.8 tons is classified as low-enriched uranium."

Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that "the low-enriched version could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions."

"A country like Iran," Mr. Cochran said, "could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium."

Saddam's 500-ton Uranium Stockpile




4. Joe Wilson's famous trip to Niamey notwithstanding, intelligence analysts generally accept that Iraq made overtures to Niger about purchasing "yellow cake" uranium in 1999. This conclusion has been endorsed by both the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraq War intelligence and by the British Butler Report. To the best of our knowledge, then, the "16 words" were in fact true. It is not known, on the other hand, whether any deal was actually concluded. As so happens, however, whether or not Iraq obtained uranium from Niger in or after 1999, the inference that the Iraqi nuclear program could not have posed a threat without its having done so is not only obviously problematic on logical grounds -- it is also demonstrably false.

It is well known and well documented that Iraq already possessed some 500 hundred or so tons of "yellow cake" uranium, most of it imported from Portugal and Niger in the early 1980s. (See here, for example, under "yellow cake inventory," from a 1991 IAEA report.) It is, above all, this fact that has been made to disappear from public view by the theatrics surrounding the "16 words." It is worth noting in this connection that the forged documents that were used, along with the Wilson trip, to discredit the administration's arguments reportedly referred to a purchase of some 500 tons of yellow cake: i.e. around the size of Iraq's actual yellow cake stocks. This curious detail suggests that the obfuscation was not accidental. In any case, if Iraq was interested in enriching uranium for weapons use -- which would have been the purpose of importing unenriched "yellow cake" -- it already had ample stocks on hand for doing so.
WPR Article | 16 Words, 500 Tons and 28 Kilograms: the Iraqi Nuclear Program Revisited

 

[NYcarbineer]

Denial by the tragically wrong Iraq war supporters will never end. That is a certainty.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You want to argue with someone about whether or not Iraq had WMD's?

Argue with the guy who said this:

"...everybody thought there was weapons of mass destruction. There weren't any."

President GW Bush, December 2005.

When you've convinced him, let us know.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/19/politics/19text-bush.html?pagewanted=6&_r=0

 

[LeftofLeft]

You want to argue with someone about whether or not Iraq had WMD's?

Argue with the guy who said this:

"...everybody thought there was weapons of mass destruction. There weren't any."

President GW Bush, December 2005.

When you've convinced him, let us know.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/19/politics/19text-bush.html?pagewanted=6&_r=0

GW Bush did not inherit a good Intelligence infrastructure like Obama did.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Denial by the tragically wrong Iraq war supporters will never end. That is a certainty.

Meaning that you found post #256 unimpeachable...

...and your post is, therefore, simply more of your simian gabble.....