Does anyone care we won the war in IRAQ?

[JRK]

There was a war in Iraq? Who knew? Wouldn't a war require two sides or more to battle it out? Oh the insurgents were one side, I get it now, war is a nice word to cover an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. But reasons followed like water at high tide, one person counted 33 reasons for our invasion of Iraq, I wonder which one counted or did they all? Was Granada a war too? One day history will look back and say what a primitive time these are, just as we look back now.

"We are going to punish somebody for this attack, but just who or where will be blown to smithereens for it is hard to say. Maybe Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan or Iraq, or possibly all three at once. Who knows? Not even the Generals in what remains of the Pentagon or the New York papers calling for war seem to know who did it or where to look for them." Hunter S. Thompson, September 12th, 2001

Did Hunter take his own life?
Last Words: A Testament to Hunter Thompson
now there is a great refernce

Now as far as who we weere fighting in Iraq
al-Qaeda in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
another item left out of the press was they were in Iraq before we invaded planning and growing
GWB never admitted this
he also never admitted there was 550 metric tons of yellow cake in Iraq when we invaded either
Al Qaeda Document: Zarqawi Came to Iraq Before The War To Prepare The Fight Against U.S

Myths
quotes taken of context
its a shame the great thing our troops did in Iraq has got so much BS with it no one even notices we won, its over and there will be no troops left there in a matter of months according to the Iraqi govt

Obama wants to keep 3,000-5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq into 2012 - The Washington Post

 

[Disenchanted61]

I have realized that the liberals are going to do what ever it takes to taint the great victory in Iraq
Does anyone realize that war is over and it looks like we will be 100% gone in 6 months?
That there is a republic in place?
and that women vote and hold office?
I had no idea that the liberal media and there cock suckers would go to the level they have to make the troops look bad and make the success they fought hard for look like, well ask Drock and that crew
I dont even know how to explain it
DOES ANYBODY CARE WE WON?

Censored news sources hardly amount to what you would refer to as "Liberal." And what did we "win" for our destructive escapade in Iraq?

 

[flacaltenn]

I've proven the Iraq war was started over oil. I suggest you deal with it...

...preferably in silence.

The only thing you've proven is that you don't know the diff between the 1st Gulf war, the 14 years of bad containment policy and the Bush Jr decision to fix that bad policy.

I give you concrete example of EMBARGOING mid -East oil for most of our involvement in conflict and you "declare victory". What a blowhard..

I quoted George Bush Sr. verbatim. The Iraq War started in 1991. It has been one war, not 2. It was started because of a perceived threat to our access to OIL in the region.

Containment was working. Iraq was militarily impotent. Throwing away American lives and money served no good purpose.

I enlarged your ignorance above and now we'll fix it...


Readings & Links - America's Iraq Policy - How Did It Come To This? | Spying On Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS

In the first half of 1997, a growing number of America's partners in the coalition sent diplomats back to Baghdad and struck commercial deals. Italy, Spain, and Greece reopened embassies in Baghdad, while France staffed an interest section there for the first time in seven years. All of these moves indicated a de facto acceptance of the rogue regime. Two delegations of Italian parliamentarians, and one of French, visited Iraq for talks, while a former senior French military officer headed a group of business executives from some 50 companies that staged a three-day "fair" in an attempt to secure business contracts.

We and GB were CHUMPS.. Left holding a containment bag that NONE of our other major allies wanted any part of.. The EU was writing resolutions to that effect..

http://www.medea.be/index.html?page=2&lang=en&doc=418

EU council Resolution ----

1. Reiterates its position as expressed in its abovementioned resolution of 13 April 2000 and calls upon the UN Security Council to commence a dialogue with a view to lifting the economic embargo while maintaining a strict arms embargo on Iraq;

2. Proposes sending parliamentary fact-finding delegations with a view to opening a dialogue to establish how the oil-for-food programme can be extended to improve the living conditions of the Iraqi people;

3. Expresses its belief that EU diplomacy should try to bring about a lifting of the no-fly zone, together with a formal renunciation by the Iraqi Government of the use of military force in dealing with the demands for autonomy of the Kurdish people;

4. Reiterates the need for the UN, WHO and Red Cross to continue to monitor the importation and equitable distribution of goods and services, so that the benefits thereof reach the most deprived and vulnerable people in Iraq;

How about getting the message NYCarb from the leftist of sources???

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020121&s=letter

He claims the most reliable studies estimate that the number of Iraqi children under 5 who died is actually 350,000. Curiously, he makes no attempt to estimate the number of children over 5 who perished, or the elderly who died of malnutrition or the sick adults finished off by lack of medicine. If Cortright is correct and critics (who base their figures on UN and NGO studies) are wrong, that's wonderful news indeed. Hundreds of thousands presumed dead are still alive. But why is he doing The James Rubin, figuring out every which way to blame the Iraqis for what is being done to them?

He says the sanctions would have ended if Iraq had been more accommodating to the arms inspectors. Rubbish. Presidents Bush and Clinton both swore the sanctions would not end until Saddam Hussein was removed from power. Cortright also faults Iraq for not agreeing to "oil for food" sooner. I'm no defender of the tyrant and war criminal Saddam, but it was a hard call. Any Iraqi leader would try to protect oil, the country's only natural resource. Has Iraq been treated fairly in the five years since "oil for food"? $44 billion in oil has been sold, but only $13.3 billion worth of goods has been delivered to the Iraqi government.

UN Oil for Food filled with corruption.. Making the USA look like a jail keeper on the take. At least 250,000 DEAD from the embargo and the bombing. And you say that """CONTAINMENT WAS WORKING""" ??????? Couldn't have worked finer for deniers of history..

This guy will set your adled mind straight on how "working" the policy was...

"We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral." Denis Halliday, after resigning as first UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, The Independent, 15 October 1998

Here's you NYCarb --- in the role of Madeleine Albright..

"When Madeleine Albright, then the American secretary of state [sic], was asked in an interview on 60 Minutes whether she had considered the resulting death of 500,000 Iraqi children (of malnutrition and disease), she said, ‘We think the price is worth it.’"

Guess you wanted to continue to cut off their economy and kill Iraqis, bomb them daily, and let the UN STEAL THEIR OIL... What a plan --- You meathead..

Maybe you convieniently ignored the plight of the Iraqis for 14 years. I didn't, "the Nation" magazine didn't, the EU didn't and most historians won't. The containment HAD FAILED. There were 2 options for changing US policy.. I gave you those.. THAT is the reason for the 2nd Iraq War..

 

[JRK]

The only thing you've proven is that you don't know the diff between the 1st Gulf war, the 14 years of bad containment policy and the Bush Jr decision to fix that bad policy.

I give you concrete example of EMBARGOING mid -East oil for most of our involvement in conflict and you "declare victory". What a blowhard..

I quoted George Bush Sr. verbatim. The Iraq War started in 1991. It has been one war, not 2. It was started because of a perceived threat to our access to OIL in the region.

Containment was working. Iraq was militarily impotent. Throwing away American lives and money served no good purpose.

I enlarged your ignorance above and now we'll fix it...


Readings & Links - America's Iraq Policy - How Did It Come To This? | Spying On Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS



We and GB were CHUMPS.. Left holding a containment bag that NONE of our other major allies wanted any part of.. The EU was writing resolutions to that effect..

http://www.medea.be/index.html?page=2&lang=en&doc=418

EU council Resolution ----



How about getting the message NYCarb from the leftist of sources???

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020121&s=letter



UN Oil for Food filled with corruption.. Making the USA look like a jail keeper on the take. At least 250,000 DEAD from the embargo and the bombing. And you say that """CONTAINMENT WAS WORKING""" ??????? Couldn't have worked finer for deniers of history..

This guy will set your adled mind straight on how "working" the policy was...

"We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral." Denis Halliday, after resigning as first UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, The Independent, 15 October 1998

Here's you NYCarb --- in the role of Madeleine Albright..

"When Madeleine Albright, then the American secretary of state [sic], was asked in an interview on 60 Minutes whether she had considered the resulting death of 500,000 Iraqi children (of malnutrition and disease), she said, ‘We think the price is worth it.’"

Guess you wanted to continue to cut off their economy and kill Iraqis, bomb them daily, and let the UN STEAL THEIR OIL... What a plan --- You meathead..

Maybe you convieniently ignored the plight of the Iraqis for 14 years. I didn't, "the Nation" magazine didn't, the EU didn't and most historians won't. The containment HAD FAILED. There were 2 options for changing US policy.. I gave you those.. THAT is the reason for the 2nd Iraq War..

the left pretends these events began 2/2003
they deny that UN personall were getting kickbacks on the oil for food program
maybe ignore is a better word

This mess had been going on for years abd costing us billions
we closed bases in Saudi
we closed bases in Kuwait
we stop bank rolling the UN to do nothing
that cost savings has never been compared in the cost of the war

One other thing
we were not fighting Iraqis all this time, in fact we were not fighting Iraqis within days of the invasion
it was al Qieuda

 

[flacaltenn]

JRK:

I understand your frustration with this discussion. But I can't understand why Conservatives continue to let themselves be Rope-a-Doped into defending the "liberation" of Iraq on the basis of WMDs and PAST threats of Saddam.

All that is required is to show how morally depraved and unsuccessful the 12 year containment policy was. HISTORY won't ignore those 12 years. They won't ignore the Oil for Food fiasco. They won't ignore the 250,000 deaths from taking the keys to the Iraqi economy away. The only choice was whether to follow the EU and lower the containment -- or to take out Saddam.

Saddam was NOT a threat based on facts about Iraqi capabilities existing in 2001. Just accept that part. But 9/11 changed the choice matrix. We could not go to war with Al Queda while the Arab watched the lockdown of the Iraqis and daily bombings. Couldn't make the claim that we were not at war with the Arab world. And the NEW threat from Saddam would be letting him out of containment.

Because after 12 years in solitary with a madman -- the Iraqis were PRIMED to support anti-US interests going forward. My God -- sometimes Conservatives are as dense as leftists.. Stop trying soo hard to defend the lying part. Just use the facts.. Clinton is on record with the same dam lies and claims that "Saddam must go before the containment ends". It's POINTLESS to argue a difference there.

What becomes clear is that a brave decision was made to FIX 14 years of really really bad Iraq policy. And at least Bush chose to fix it..

 

[JRK]

JRK:

I understand your frustration with this discussion. But I can't understand why Conservatives continue to let themselves be Rope-a-Doped into defending the "liberation" of Iraq on the basis of WMDs and PAST threats of Saddam.

All that is required is to show how morally depraved and unsuccessful the 12 year containment policy was. HISTORY won't ignore those 12 years. They won't ignore the Oil for Food fiasco. They won't ignore the 250,000 deaths from taking the keys to the Iraqi economy away. The only choice was whether to follow the EU and lower the containment -- or to take out Saddam.

Saddam was NOT a threat based on facts about Iraqi capabilities existing in 2001. Just accept that part. But 9/11 changed the choice matrix. We could not go to war with Al Queda while the Arab watched the lockdown of the Iraqis and daily bombings. Couldn't make the claim that we were not at war with the Arab world. And the NEW threat from Saddam would be letting him out of containment.

Because after 12 years in solitary with a madman -- the Iraqis were PRIMED to support anti-US interests going forward. My God -- sometimes Conservatives are as dense as leftists.. Stop trying soo hard to defend the lying part. Just use the facts.. Clinton is on record with the same dam lies and claims that "Saddam must go before the containment ends". It's POINTLESS to argue a difference there.

What becomes clear is that a brave decision was made to FIX 14 years of really really bad Iraq policy. And at least Bush chose to fix it..

1) My part about the WMDs is about the war being legal
2) Saddam and the country was un stable, the part of your thread is no different than what I have been sating

yo have not read my threads, thats obvious
I never have defended anything
inforamtion that has never got front page, in fact I have made it clear many times that what we found was not what we said was there

there was WMDS, not anything like the UN claimed there was, nor us
Wht there was yellow cake there for 18 years and no-one seemed to mention that confuses me

And as far as all the other reasons we wnt
I have documented those many times

do not confuse the simple act of stating the information that is ignored with using that as justification

 

[Unkotare]

You would have preferred an invasion of the Soviet Union at some point in the past compared to how the Cold War eventually played out?

If we could have prevented between 25 and 60 million from dying under Soviet rule, and countless others suffering under the yoke of communism? Of course I would have preferred that.

 

[idb]

JRK:

I understand your frustration with this discussion. But I can't understand why Conservatives continue to let themselves be Rope-a-Doped into defending the "liberation" of Iraq on the basis of WMDs and PAST threats of Saddam.

All that is required is to show how morally depraved and unsuccessful the 12 year containment policy was. HISTORY won't ignore those 12 years. They won't ignore the Oil for Food fiasco. They won't ignore the 250,000 deaths from taking the keys to the Iraqi economy away. The only choice was whether to follow the EU and lower the containment -- or to take out Saddam.

Saddam was NOT a threat based on facts about Iraqi capabilities existing in 2001. Just accept that part. But 9/11 changed the choice matrix. We could not go to war with Al Queda while the Arab watched the lockdown of the Iraqis and daily bombings. Couldn't make the claim that we were not at war with the Arab world. And the NEW threat from Saddam would be letting him out of containment.

Because after 12 years in solitary with a madman -- the Iraqis were PRIMED to support anti-US interests going forward. My God -- sometimes Conservatives are as dense as leftists.. Stop trying soo hard to defend the lying part. Just use the facts.. Clinton is on record with the same dam lies and claims that "Saddam must go before the containment ends". It's POINTLESS to argue a difference there.

What becomes clear is that a brave decision was made to FIX 14 years of really really bad Iraq policy. And at least Bush chose to fix it..

You're right, the containment policy was appalling - mainly to the people of Iraq.

The justifications for the invasion are muddied in my mind however, because of the stated intention of PNAC to remove Saddam well before 9/11 and the election of the Bush government.
PNAC of course was strongly represented in the Bush administration.

I believe that the invasion was pre-ordained, 9/11 provided the perfect opportunity, justifications were manufactured before the invasion and new justifications were provided after the original reasons were found to be wanting.

Further, the mishandling of the post-invasion situation shows that the only goal in the minds of Bush administration was the removal of Saddam, no consideration was taken of wider objectives or consequences.

 

[JRK]

JRK:

I understand your frustration with this discussion. But I can't understand why Conservatives continue to let themselves be Rope-a-Doped into defending the "liberation" of Iraq on the basis of WMDs and PAST threats of Saddam.

All that is required is to show how morally depraved and unsuccessful the 12 year containment policy was. HISTORY won't ignore those 12 years. They won't ignore the Oil for Food fiasco. They won't ignore the 250,000 deaths from taking the keys to the Iraqi economy away. The only choice was whether to follow the EU and lower the containment -- or to take out Saddam.

Saddam was NOT a threat based on facts about Iraqi capabilities existing in 2001. Just accept that part. But 9/11 changed the choice matrix. We could not go to war with Al Queda while the Arab watched the lockdown of the Iraqis and daily bombings. Couldn't make the claim that we were not at war with the Arab world. And the NEW threat from Saddam would be letting him out of containment.

Because after 12 years in solitary with a madman -- the Iraqis were PRIMED to support anti-US interests going forward. My God -- sometimes Conservatives are as dense as leftists.. Stop trying soo hard to defend the lying part. Just use the facts.. Clinton is on record with the same dam lies and claims that "Saddam must go before the containment ends". It's POINTLESS to argue a difference there.

What becomes clear is that a brave decision was made to FIX 14 years of really really bad Iraq policy. And at least Bush chose to fix it..

You're right, the containment policy was appalling - mainly to the people of Iraq.

The justifications for the invasion are muddied in my mind however, because of the stated intention of PNAC to remove Saddam well before 9/11 and the election of the Bush government.
PNAC of course was strongly represented in the Bush administration.

I believe that the invasion was pre-ordained, 9/11 provided the perfect opportunity, justifications were manufactured before the invasion and new justifications were provided after the original reasons were found to be wanting.

Further, the mishandling of the post-invasion situation shows that the only goal in the minds of Bush administration was the removal of Saddam, no consideration was taken of wider objectives or consequences.

I dis agree
I think the team underestimated al Queada in Iraq
it was not fighting Iraqis
any way your opinion is just that
yours

 

[idb]

JRK:

I understand your frustration with this discussion. But I can't understand why Conservatives continue to let themselves be Rope-a-Doped into defending the "liberation" of Iraq on the basis of WMDs and PAST threats of Saddam.

All that is required is to show how morally depraved and unsuccessful the 12 year containment policy was. HISTORY won't ignore those 12 years. They won't ignore the Oil for Food fiasco. They won't ignore the 250,000 deaths from taking the keys to the Iraqi economy away. The only choice was whether to follow the EU and lower the containment -- or to take out Saddam.

Saddam was NOT a threat based on facts about Iraqi capabilities existing in 2001. Just accept that part. But 9/11 changed the choice matrix. We could not go to war with Al Queda while the Arab watched the lockdown of the Iraqis and daily bombings. Couldn't make the claim that we were not at war with the Arab world. And the NEW threat from Saddam would be letting him out of containment.

Because after 12 years in solitary with a madman -- the Iraqis were PRIMED to support anti-US interests going forward. My God -- sometimes Conservatives are as dense as leftists.. Stop trying soo hard to defend the lying part. Just use the facts.. Clinton is on record with the same dam lies and claims that "Saddam must go before the containment ends". It's POINTLESS to argue a difference there.

What becomes clear is that a brave decision was made to FIX 14 years of really really bad Iraq policy. And at least Bush chose to fix it..

You're right, the containment policy was appalling - mainly to the people of Iraq.

The justifications for the invasion are muddied in my mind however, because of the stated intention of PNAC to remove Saddam well before 9/11 and the election of the Bush government.
PNAC of course was strongly represented in the Bush administration.

I believe that the invasion was pre-ordained, 9/11 provided the perfect opportunity, justifications were manufactured before the invasion and new justifications were provided after the original reasons were found to be wanting.

Further, the mishandling of the post-invasion situation shows that the only goal in the minds of Bush administration was the removal of Saddam, no consideration was taken of wider objectives or consequences.

I dis agree
I think the team underestimated al Queada in Iraq
it was not fighting Iraqis
any way your opinion is just that
yours

That's what I said...I'm agreeing with you.
Planning for the war took no or little account of Al Quaeda

 

[JRK]

You're right, the containment policy was appalling - mainly to the people of Iraq.

The justifications for the invasion are muddied in my mind however, because of the stated intention of PNAC to remove Saddam well before 9/11 and the election of the Bush government.
PNAC of course was strongly represented in the Bush administration.

I believe that the invasion was pre-ordained, 9/11 provided the perfect opportunity, justifications were manufactured before the invasion and new justifications were provided after the original reasons were found to be wanting.

Further, the mishandling of the post-invasion situation shows that the only goal in the minds of Bush administration was the removal of Saddam, no consideration was taken of wider objectives or consequences.

I dis agree
I think the team underestimated al Queada in Iraq
it was not fighting Iraqis
any way your opinion is just that
yours

That's what I said...I'm agreeing with you.
Planning for the war took no or little account of Al Quaeda

I would love to dis agree with you
I cannot
thats what killed the troops and Iraqis for the most part was al Quaeda

 

[idb]

I dis agree
I think the team underestimated al Queada in Iraq
it was not fighting Iraqis
any way your opinion is just that
yours

That's what I said...I'm agreeing with you.
Planning for the war took no or little account of Al Quaeda

I would love to dis agree with you
I cannot
thats what killed the troops and Iraqis for the most part was al Quaeda

Why would you love to disagree with me?

 

[JWBooth]

I have realized that the liberals are going to do what ever it takes to taint the great victory in Iraq
Does anyone realize that war is over and it looks like we will be 100% gone in 6 months?
That there is a republic in place?
and that women vote and hold office?
I had no idea that the liberal media and there cock suckers would go to the level they have to make the troops look bad and make the success they fought hard for look like, well ask Drock and that crew
I dont even know how to explain it
DOES ANYBODY CARE WE WON?

Not particularly as it was an incredible waste of blood and treasure fought under false pretenses.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You would have preferred an invasion of the Soviet Union at some point in the past compared to how the Cold War eventually played out?

If we could have prevented between 25 and 60 million from dying under Soviet rule, and countless others suffering under the yoke of communism? Of course I would have preferred that.

Why? What is the vital national interest of the United States of what goes on inside a country like Russia, or China, or North Korea, or the Congo, or the Sudan, or Angola, or Zimbabwe, or Cuba??

Would you invade every country that you suspected might be the site of human suffering?

 

[JRK]

That's what I said...I'm agreeing with you.
Planning for the war took no or little account of Al Quaeda

I would love to dis agree with you
I cannot
thats what killed the troops and Iraqis for the most part was al Quaeda

Why would you love to disagree with me?

good question
never mind

 

[NYcarbineer]

The only thing you've proven is that you don't know the diff between the 1st Gulf war, the 14 years of bad containment policy and the Bush Jr decision to fix that bad policy.

I give you concrete example of EMBARGOING mid -East oil for most of our involvement in conflict and you "declare victory". What a blowhard..

I quoted George Bush Sr. verbatim. The Iraq War started in 1991. It has been one war, not 2. It was started because of a perceived threat to our access to OIL in the region.

Containment was working. Iraq was militarily impotent. Throwing away American lives and money served no good purpose.

I enlarged your ignorance above and now we'll fix it...


Readings & Links - America's Iraq Policy - How Did It Come To This? | Spying On Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS



We and GB were CHUMPS.. Left holding a containment bag that NONE of our other major allies wanted any part of.. The EU was writing resolutions to that effect..

http://www.medea.be/index.html?page=2&lang=en&doc=418

EU council Resolution ----



How about getting the message NYCarb from the leftist of sources???

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020121&s=letter



UN Oil for Food filled with corruption.. Making the USA look like a jail keeper on the take. At least 250,000 DEAD from the embargo and the bombing. And you say that """CONTAINMENT WAS WORKING""" ??????? Couldn't have worked finer for deniers of history..

This guy will set your adled mind straight on how "working" the policy was...

"We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral." Denis Halliday, after resigning as first UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, The Independent, 15 October 1998

Here's you NYCarb --- in the role of Madeleine Albright..

"When Madeleine Albright, then the American secretary of state [sic], was asked in an interview on 60 Minutes whether she had considered the resulting death of 500,000 Iraqi children (of malnutrition and disease), she said, ‘We think the price is worth it.’"

Guess you wanted to continue to cut off their economy and kill Iraqis, bomb them daily, and let the UN STEAL THEIR OIL... What a plan --- You meathead..

Maybe you convieniently ignored the plight of the Iraqis for 14 years. I didn't, "the Nation" magazine didn't, the EU didn't and most historians won't. The containment HAD FAILED. There were 2 options for changing US policy.. I gave you those.. THAT is the reason for the 2nd Iraq War..

I have no interest in the internal affairs of foreign nations unless they threaten the vital national interests, security, and survival of the U. S.

It is not moral to send American boys to die meddling in other nations' problems.

 

[JRK]

I have realized that the liberals are going to do what ever it takes to taint the great victory in Iraq
Does anyone realize that war is over and it looks like we will be 100% gone in 6 months?
That there is a republic in place?
and that women vote and hold office?
I had no idea that the liberal media and there cock suckers would go to the level they have to make the troops look bad and make the success they fought hard for look like, well ask Drock and that crew
I dont even know how to explain it
DOES ANYBODY CARE WE WON?

Not particularly as it was an incredible waste of blood and treasure fought under false pretenses.

Booth what was false?
Saddam had weapons he was not suppose to have
according to the UN he had 6500 munitions he was not suppose to have (we found 500 of them)
according to the UN he had anthrax
he had nerve gas according to the UN
we found out there was 550 metric tons of yellow cake there
100s of thousands were starving to death while he lied to the UN and us about the weapons and the monies his oil for food program
Al Queada was there before we invaded, now whats left?

the munitions were out dated, there was nothing in the agreement about the condition of those munitions
the yellow cake was supose to be under control of some agencey yet no-one has explained why it was still there in 2003 when we took control of it

 

[NYcarbineer]

[The DOD stated there was WMDs
what W said was there was not the stockpiles we were led to beileve by the UN as well as the documentation the Iraqis had
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
sense you did not supply a link to your claim what W stated in the full context

GWB was correct in his statement that in the context as there where active WMDs was in correct
His claim there was none in the context of any is in correct
what baffles me is that the DOD made this information public and to congress in 2006. WHy did the press excpet fox news ignore it?
and what was the question asked that GWB responded too?
at what point in these debates does the left realize that the UN was making the same claims as we were? and that Iraaq had 18 months to rid there country of the 6000 munitions that are still un accounted for?Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq - U.S. Senate - FOXNews.com

to confirm my thoughts
Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

This is n not GWB words and let it be known his comment does not change the fact that Iraq was suppose to have destroyed these. It is been my content that the myth is there was NONE, The links I provided were clear in what state these munitions where

George Bush said there were NO WMD's. He either lied, or you are full of shit to the tune of about 500 posts worth.

Make up your mind.

btw, when President Bush said there were NO WMD's, he was effectively making a declaration against interests. Look it up. It is considered very strong testimony.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All this blather and denial by the people who supported the disaster of the Iraq war is little more than a manifestation of guilt and the inability to admit one was wrong.

And all that accomplishes is to make it that much less difficult for us to blunder into the next disaster.

The generation that got us into Iraq was the generation that came of age during Vietnam. You'd think that would have been sufficient lesson, for god's sake.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have realized that the liberals are going to do what ever it takes to taint the great victory in Iraq
Does anyone realize that war is over and it looks like we will be 100% gone in 6 months?
That there is a republic in place?
and that women vote and hold office?
I had no idea that the liberal media and there cock suckers would go to the level they have to make the troops look bad and make the success they fought hard for look like, well ask Drock and that crew
I dont even know how to explain it
DOES ANYBODY CARE WE WON?

Not particularly as it was an incredible waste of blood and treasure fought under false pretenses.

Booth what was false?
Saddam had weapons he was not suppose to have
according to the UN he had 6500 munitions he was not suppose to have (we found 500 of them)
according to the UN he had anthrax
he had nerve gas according to the UN
we found out there was 550 metric tons of yellow cake there
100s of thousands were starving to death while he lied to the UN and us about the weapons and the monies his oil for food program
Al Queada was there before we invaded, now whats left?

the munitions were out dated, there was nothing in the agreement about the condition of those munitions
the yellow cake was supose to be under control of some agencey yet no-one has explained why it was still there in 2003 when we took control of it

Repeating crap that's been debunked over and over in all four or five of the same threads you've started on this is not going to make it magically come true.

Face it, we threw away thousands of American lives for NOTHING. You supported it, you were wrong, get over it.