Do Republicans regret their Iraq fiasco?

[NotfooledbyW]

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

.Others pointed to another embarrassment. In five of six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...iraq-chemical-weapons.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2

Bush in 2003 was not talking about American and European made CW shells from the 1980s.

You suck at reading long reports. You begin hallucinating thing before you get to the end.

 

[Dot Com]

it boggles the mind that there is one, let alone 1000's of these vietraq hangers-on.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ALL of this material was supposed to be accounted for by the U.N. inspectors, and IT WASN'T ...our men were wounded, and covered over by the CIA!!!

Is that supposed to be from the NY Times report you have been citing?

 

[Vigilante]

ALL of this material was supposed to be accounted for by the U.N. inspectors, and IT WASN'T ...our men were wounded, and covered over by the CIA!!!

Is that supposed to be from the NY Times report you have been citing?

No....THIS IS!

The soldiers at the blast crater sensed something was wrong.

It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake. The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells.

Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before.

He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. “That doesn’t look like pond water,” said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling.

The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes.

All three men recall an awkward pause. Then Sergeant Duling gave an order: “Get the hell out.”

Five years after President George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq, these soldiers had entered an expansive but largely secret chapter of America’s long and bitter involvement in Iraq.

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"ALL of this material was supposed to be accounted for by the U.N. inspectors, and IT WASN'T ..."

So you made that up on your own. I figured because it is not true.

This is true from the NY Times report about the shameful way Bush treated his warriors that he sent to kill and be killed in Iraq:

. The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.

And this:

.The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.

Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

. In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.

. Iraq produced 10 metric tons of mustard blister agent in 1981; by 1987 its production had grown 90-fold, with late-war output aided bytwo American companies that provided hundreds of tons of thiodiglycol, a mustard agent precursor. Production of nerve agents also took off.

.
Chemical munitions can resemble conventional munitions — a problem compounded by Iraq’s practice of mislabeling ordnance to confuse foreign inspectors and, with time, by rust, pitting and dirt.

These were the circumstances that combined against ordnance disposal teams as they pursued their primary duty in the war: defeating makeshift bombs.

Almost all of the bombs were made with conventional ordnance or homemade explosives. Here and there, among the others, were bombs made from chemical arms.

.
The widely heralded report, by the multinational Iraq Survey Group, concluded that Iraq had not had an active chemical warfare program for more than a decade.

The group, led by Charles A. Duelfer, a former United Nations official working for the Central Intelligence Agency, acknowledged that the American military had found old chemical ordnance: 12 artillery shells and 41 rocket warheads. It predicted that troops would find more.

The report also played down the dangers of the lingering weapons, stating that because their contents would have deteriorated, “any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat.”

You think It was worth 4484 US soldiers's lives to find 20 year old rusty rotten old shells from the Iran Iraq war when the US helped Iraq produce so many of them they lost track.

Had Bush let the professionals continue inspecting for new WMD programs and new WMD stockpiles there would have been an ongoing monitoring program for new weapons and the professionals could have cleaned up the old piles of weapons in a proper way and not in the midst of an insurgency against US occupation in the middle of much violence between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis. You are a danged fool to be citing this report to try and defend what the imbecile Bush did in and to Iraq.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Uncle Saddam would never use chemical weapons

Never

 

[Vigilante]

"ALL of this material was supposed to be accounted for by the U.N. inspectors, and IT WASN'T ..."

So you made that up on your own. I figured because it is not true.

This is true from the NY Times report about the shameful way Bush treated his warriors that he sent to kill and be killed in Iraq:

. The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.

And this:

.The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.

Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

. In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.

. Iraq produced 10 metric tons of mustard blister agent in 1981; by 1987 its production had grown 90-fold, with late-war output aided bytwo American companies that provided hundreds of tons of thiodiglycol, a mustard agent precursor. Production of nerve agents also took off.

.
Chemical munitions can resemble conventional munitions — a problem compounded by Iraq’s practice of mislabeling ordnance to confuse foreign inspectors and, with time, by rust, pitting and dirt.

These were the circumstances that combined against ordnance disposal teams as they pursued their primary duty in the war: defeating makeshift bombs.

Almost all of the bombs were made with conventional ordnance or homemade explosives. Here and there, among the others, were bombs made from chemical arms.

.
The widely heralded report, by the multinational Iraq Survey Group, concluded that Iraq had not had an active chemical warfare program for more than a decade.

The group, led by Charles A. Duelfer, a former United Nations official working for the Central Intelligence Agency, acknowledged that the American military had found old chemical ordnance: 12 artillery shells and 41 rocket warheads. It predicted that troops would find more.

The report also played down the dangers of the lingering weapons, stating that because their contents would have deteriorated, “any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat.”

You think It was worth 4484 US soldiers's lives to find 20 year old rusty rotten old shells from the Iran Iraq war when the US helped Iraq produce so many of them they lost track.

Had Bush let the professionals continue inspecting for new WMD programs and new WMD stockpiles there would been an ongoing monitoring program for new weapons and the professionals could have cleaned up the old piles of weapons in a proper way and not in the midst of an insurgency against US occupation in the middle of much violence between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis. You are a danged fool to be citing this report to try and defend what the imbecile Bush did in and to Iraq.

So you admit that there was WMD in Iraq, NOT accounted for, as stated by the N.Y. Times....thanks for playing!

 

[CowboyTed]

"ALL of this material was supposed to be accounted for by the U.N. inspectors, and IT WASN'T ..."

So you made that up on your own. I figured because it is not true.

This is true from the NY Times report about the shameful way Bush treated his warriors that he sent to kill and be killed in Iraq:

. The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.

And this:

.The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.

Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

. In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.

. Iraq produced 10 metric tons of mustard blister agent in 1981; by 1987 its production had grown 90-fold, with late-war output aided bytwo American companies that provided hundreds of tons of thiodiglycol, a mustard agent precursor. Production of nerve agents also took off.

.
Chemical munitions can resemble conventional munitions — a problem compounded by Iraq’s practice of mislabeling ordnance to confuse foreign inspectors and, with time, by rust, pitting and dirt.

These were the circumstances that combined against ordnance disposal teams as they pursued their primary duty in the war: defeating makeshift bombs.

Almost all of the bombs were made with conventional ordnance or homemade explosives. Here and there, among the others, were bombs made from chemical arms.

.
The widely heralded report, by the multinational Iraq Survey Group, concluded that Iraq had not had an active chemical warfare program for more than a decade.

The group, led by Charles A. Duelfer, a former United Nations official working for the Central Intelligence Agency, acknowledged that the American military had found old chemical ordnance: 12 artillery shells and 41 rocket warheads. It predicted that troops would find more.

The report also played down the dangers of the lingering weapons, stating that because their contents would have deteriorated, “any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat.”

You think It was worth 4484 US soldiers's lives to find 20 year old rusty rotten old shells from the Iran Iraq war when the US helped Iraq produce so many of them they lost track.

Had Bush let the professionals continue inspecting for new WMD programs and new WMD stockpiles there would been an ongoing monitoring program for new weapons and the professionals could have cleaned up the old piles of weapons in a proper way and not in the midst of an insurgency against US occupation in the middle of much violence between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis. You are a danged fool to be citing this report to try and defend what the imbecile Bush did in and to Iraq.

So you admit that there was WMD in Iraq, NOT accounted for, as stated by the N.Y. Times....thanks for playing!

If they are not useable and there was no program to crate any then there is no WMDs. You are clinging on to a delusion.

You can't admit you were wrong.

President Bush Admits Iraq Had No WMDs and Nothing to Do With 9 11 Democracy Now

You are morally bankrupt... That is why when the RW say anything about ME, we know ye were the idiots who got it wrong and alot of people died.

Personally I think your stance now is disgusting, hundreds of thousands died that false war. You are like a holocaust deiner now... Trying to justify an illegal war...

So as I said before, why has none of the nut job GOP candidates taken your line...

 

[Vigilante]

"ALL of this material was supposed to be accounted for by the U.N. inspectors, and IT WASN'T ..."

So you made that up on your own. I figured because it is not true.

This is true from the NY Times report about the shameful way Bush treated his warriors that he sent to kill and be killed in Iraq:

. The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.

And this:

.The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.

Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

. In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.

. Iraq produced 10 metric tons of mustard blister agent in 1981; by 1987 its production had grown 90-fold, with late-war output aided bytwo American companies that provided hundreds of tons of thiodiglycol, a mustard agent precursor. Production of nerve agents also took off.

.
Chemical munitions can resemble conventional munitions — a problem compounded by Iraq’s practice of mislabeling ordnance to confuse foreign inspectors and, with time, by rust, pitting and dirt.

These were the circumstances that combined against ordnance disposal teams as they pursued their primary duty in the war: defeating makeshift bombs.

Almost all of the bombs were made with conventional ordnance or homemade explosives. Here and there, among the others, were bombs made from chemical arms.

.
The widely heralded report, by the multinational Iraq Survey Group, concluded that Iraq had not had an active chemical warfare program for more than a decade.

The group, led by Charles A. Duelfer, a former United Nations official working for the Central Intelligence Agency, acknowledged that the American military had found old chemical ordnance: 12 artillery shells and 41 rocket warheads. It predicted that troops would find more.

The report also played down the dangers of the lingering weapons, stating that because their contents would have deteriorated, “any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat.”

You think It was worth 4484 US soldiers's lives to find 20 year old rusty rotten old shells from the Iran Iraq war when the US helped Iraq produce so many of them they lost track.

Had Bush let the professionals continue inspecting for new WMD programs and new WMD stockpiles there would been an ongoing monitoring program for new weapons and the professionals could have cleaned up the old piles of weapons in a proper way and not in the midst of an insurgency against US occupation in the middle of much violence between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis. You are a danged fool to be citing this report to try and defend what the imbecile Bush did in and to Iraq.

So you admit that there was WMD in Iraq, NOT accounted for, as stated by the N.Y. Times....thanks for playing!

If they are not useable and there was no program to crate any then there is no WMDs. You are clinging on to a delusion.

You can't admit you were wrong.

President Bush Admits Iraq Had No WMDs and Nothing to Do With 9 11 Democracy Now

You are morally bankrupt... That is why when the RW say anything about ME, we know ye were the idiots who got it wrong and alot of people died.

Personally I think your stance now is disgusting, hundreds of thousands died that false war. You are like a holocaust deiner now... Trying to justify an illegal war...

So as I said before, why has none of the nut job GOP candidates taken your line...

What's the matter you didn't read this part of the article, or selective stupidity? Of course these things were ACTIVE...

"The New York Times found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government’s official count was classified."

Even Bush misspoke about WMD, as these were kept CLASSIFIED by the CIA...again, you can't read!

You little Commie, subversive scum, have been put down by the LIBERAL N.Y. Times, as there were ACTIVE WMD in Iraq, even until 2011, and people were being killed and injured by them.... It must be HARD for the ass kissers to admit THEY WERE WRONG, Now say it, like a little shithead, that you are..."There were WMD in Iraq, as Bush said there was!"..... come on, it will only embarrass you a little!

 

[TimothysAlaska]

But TimothysAlaska has been proven to be spreading false information and now you have joined him in that insidious behavior. Obama did not fire Petraeus. Petraeus resigned because a personal scandal. I was sorry to see that happen. But there is no need to lie that Obama fired him. That was a stupid lie on your part.

Just part of the re writing of the history of the Bush administration. In a couple more years, right wingers will claim that Bush was forced to invade Iraq by the Democrats in Congress. We are almost there now.

What false rumors have I been spreading? Yeah yeah yeah a bunch of generals "retired" under obama. But when you achieve a certain rank/status you aren't "fired". I guess Lois Lerner just retired because she wanted to, or shineski stepped down from the va because he wanted to. Anyway all I stated was there have been a lot of shifting around in the military. And left a lot of confusion among the lower ranking people on what is going on. Those are facts. Not rumors. About Iraq all I stated was what was going on at the time, or are you going to tell me that southern and northern watch never happened and they were not military deployments that lasted till 2003? Or that Saudi was not kicking us out of psab? Or the shift to Qatar? I am not rewriting what happened I am just telling you what was actually going on at the time. It seems to me and quite a bit of junior ranking people that the admin is hostile to the military advice. Morale isn't that high in the military. And one of the reasons is no direction from the higher ranks. Serving under Clinton and bush and obama, I have noticed that the message to the lower ranks isn't there and is obscured under obama on what is going on or any type of mission objectives. I understand that most of these things come from the pentagon but it has been lacking these last 3 years. And the president usually has supporting statements to the military along the way almost like a cheer leader. Criticizing bush about Iraq is ok, but you guys never rember what was going on at the time, But what I knew at the time it seemed the right thing to do. And it is funny watching John Kerry bitching about going into Iraq, when he had more knowledge of what was going on at the time then any of us did, which proves he is just politicking what people believe like a Monday-morning quarterback. It does no good for anything but make the people that believe the hype feel good! And if you just watch the American news all you really know is the political points of Dems and repubs and no facts about anything that was going on or is going on. But I realize it doesn't matter to most of you about that.

 

[Politico]

1. 
   Do Republicans regret their Iraq fiasco?

No more than the Leftytoons who voted to get us into it then and are getting us into more shit now.

See what I mean? Republicans insisting the "fiasco" was the Democrats fault because they went along with it? Wow, talk about the lack of taking responsibility. They won't and never will.

No see how you Leftytoons won't admit that the idiots you keep voting for are as much to blame.

 

[Faun]

ALL of this material was supposed to be accounted for by the U.N. inspectors, and IT WASN'T ...our men were wounded, and covered over by the CIA!!!

Is that supposed to be from the NY Times report you have been citing?

No....THIS IS!

The soldiers at the blast crater sensed something was wrong.

It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake. The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells.

Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before.

He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. “That doesn’t look like pond water,” said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling.

The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes.

All three men recall an awkward pause. Then Sergeant Duling gave an order: “Get the hell out.”

Five years after President George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq, these soldiers had entered an expansive but largely secret chapter of America’s long and bitter involvement in Iraq.

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

All remnants from before the first Gulf War and mostly out of Hussein's hands. But where were the stockpiles of WMD Bush warned us about? Where were the newly created WMD Bush warned us about? Where was the threat of a "mushroom cloud" Bush warned us about? Where were the active WMD programs Bush warned us about?

 

[Claudette]

Do they? Considering all the damage it's caused. All the American lives lost or destroyed. The financial cost to the country. Do they ever wonder if it was a bad idea?

Democrats keep repeating your lies that you were lied to, so you're not really the one to ask until you get your own house in order.

W told the truth, Democrats told the truth, you all believed there were WMDs. Then Democrats stepped back and lied your ass off. The reason to Iraq is that it was bad policy, that is why we should not have invaded. But rather than questioning what was bad policy practiced by you as well as the Republicans, you just keep lying your ass off saying you were lied to. Integrity anyone? Start with yourself and your own party

You bet.

Last I heard that war was approved by Congress. Both houses and both parties.

Another bullshit thread.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I believed the wmd issue was merely a way to demonize Saddam in the eyes of the world...as we prepared to attack.

GFY Foo. I've never said such a thing.

You are saying it right there. The WMD didn't have to be there. They only had to be made to exist in the eyes of the world. Which is propaganda not telling the truth about what you know. That is why Bush in the end ignored what the UN and the regime in Iraq were actually getting done. I'm saying you are right. Bush therefore lied his way to war.

 

[Iceweasel]

Upon what basis do you believe that Saddam would have honored any agreement?

We have historical record that S. Hussein complied with UN Resolution 1441. It was Bush and Blair that did not. Also Saddam Hussein offered in December 2002 to let thousands of the US military FBI and CIA come in to Iraq to assist the UN inspectors to find the WMD that the US and UK suspected of being there. Saddam Hussein could not have cooperated any more than that. Bush's response was to let the UN handle that. And then he didn't let the UN Handle that.

LOL. Iraq didn't comply with the previous inspections, how do you figure he complied with one just before the shit hit the fan? You can't think.

 

[Iceweasel]

Bush therefore lied his way to war.

That's a lie.

 

[Iceweasel]

Had Bush let the professionals continue inspecting for new WMD programs and new WMD stockpiles there would have been an ongoing monitoring program for new weapons and the professionals could have cleaned up the old piles of weapons in a proper way and not in the midst of an insurgency against US occupation in the middle of much violence between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis.

That's retarded. Repeating it doesn't make it a valid point but you think it will. Saddam jerked the inspectors around for 10 years but you think it was working. That's a special kind of stupid.

 

[Edgetho]

Edget 10865668

What you SHOULD be asking (but you won't, because you are the scum of the earth) is why the Lying Cocksucker in Chief refused to push for SOFA with Iraq.

You are dumber than dumb. Obama could push all he wanted but Iraq did not want to extend the deadline that Bush agreed to in 2008.


Edget 10865668

In fact, every Intelligence service on earth thought Saddam had WMDs.

In February and March 2003 your statement is a lie. Its a rather bold lie. The ones that mattered were the majority on the Security Council of the UN. They believed the inspectors were providing the best intelligence. And all the intelligence that Bush provided to the UNSC and the inspectors turned out to be proven bogus prior to the decision to invade.


Edget 10865668

I didn't think Saddam had WMDs and if he did, they weren't deliverable

Edget 10865668

Bush went into Iraq and de-stabilized the entire region. Bad move.

Edget 10865668

But he won the War and had the region moving in the direction of democracy and civil rights for everybody -- Even women.

How did Bush win a war to find and remove WMD when there were no WMD there? Bush did not have Iraq moving in the direction of Democracy because he surrendered to Maliki and Muqtada al Sadr who were creating a Shiite-ocracy and were marginalizing the Sunni minority. Not many Sunnis that were driven (during Bush's mistake of a war) out of their homes and businesses so Shiites could move in - would agree with your bogus 'democracy and civil rights' claims.

Stupid.Fucking.Bitch.

What would Truman have done if the Germans told us to leave their Country in 1946?

What would MacArthur have done had Japan told us to get the fuck out in 1947?

You people are just FUCKING STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS.

I mean, mouth-breathing, drool cup, short bus, FUCKING STUPID.

We had just KICKED THE SHIT OUT OF IRAQ!

They had no right to tell us shit. The only reason they were even still alive is because we ALLOWED THEM TO STAY ALIVE.

the LYING COCKSUCKER IN CHIEF left Iraq because he WANTED TO. Period.

All the lying cocksucker obama had to do was say, "We're staying. Make it work or be up for another round of ass-kicking"

End of story.

Besides, the VAST majority of SOFA's are Executive Agreements. You didn't know that because -- Well, you're fucking stupid.

Fucking Period.

And you are a STUPID, knob-slurping bitch.

But, you're a dimocrap scumbag, what else is new? You ALL are

I am SO sick of STUPID human beings

 

[BlindBoo]

Do they? C

Everything was great when GWB left office. It's all Obama's fault. Just ask any Faux informed Republican.

 

[BlindBoo]

Edget 10865668

What you SHOULD be asking (but you won't, because you are the scum of the earth) is why the Lying Cocksucker in Chief refused to push for SOFA with Iraq.

You are dumber than dumb. Obama could push all he wanted but Iraq did not want to extend the deadline that Bush agreed to in 2008.


Edget 10865668

In fact, every Intelligence service on earth thought Saddam had WMDs.

In February and March 2003 your statement is a lie. Its a rather bold lie. The ones that mattered were the majority on the Security Council of the UN. They believed the inspectors were providing the best intelligence. And all the intelligence that Bush provided to the UNSC and the inspectors turned out to be proven bogus prior to the decision to invade.


Edget 10865668

I didn't think Saddam had WMDs and if he did, they weren't deliverable

Edget 10865668

Bush went into Iraq and de-stabilized the entire region. Bad move.

Edget 10865668

But he won the War and had the region moving in the direction of democracy and civil rights for everybody -- Even women.

How did Bush win a war to find and remove WMD when there were no WMD there? Bush did not have Iraq moving in the direction of Democracy because he surrendered to Maliki and Muqtada al Sadr who were creating a Shiite-ocracy and were marginalizing the Sunni minority. Not many Sunnis that were driven (during Bush's mistake of a war) out of their homes and businesses so Shiites could move in - would agree with your bogus 'democracy and civil rights' claims.

Stupid.Fucking.Bitch.

What would Truman have done if the Germans told us to leave their Country in 1946?

What would MacArthur have done had Japan told us to get the fuck out in 1947?

You people are just FUCKING STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS.

I mean, mouth-breathing, drool cup, short bus, FUCKING STUPID.

We had just KICKED THE SHIT OUT OF IRAQ!

They had no right to tell us shit. The only reason they were even still alive is because we ALLOWED THEM TO STAY ALIVE.

the LYING COCKSUCKER IN CHIEF left Iraq because he WANTED TO. Period.

All the lying cocksucker obama had to do was say, "We're staying. Make it work or be up for another round of ass-kicking"

End of story.

Besides, the VAST majority of SOFA's are Executive Agreements. You didn't know that because -- Well, you're fucking stupid.

Fucking Period.

And you are a STUPID, knob-slurping bitch.

But, you're a dimocrap scumbag, what else is new? You ALL are

I am SO sick of STUPID human beings

Iraq was not a threat, especially not one like Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan.