Obama actually did lose Iraq, Graham explains the negotiations.

[Wyatt earp]

Senator Lindsey Graham explains how Obama lost Iraq by refusing to keep troops in Iraq. The myth that it was Bush's fault is exactly that, a myth. graham and McCain were part of the group sent over to negotiate the status of forces agreement and he explained how it went with Hugh Hewitt, Lawyer, law professor, author and radio host....

Who Lost Iraq Power Line


Lindsey Graham: I think it was our fault. The president got the answer he wanted when it comes to troop levels. He wanted zero. He got zero. He promised to end the War in Iraq. He actually lost the War in Iraq.

But this is something that most people don’t know. I want to make sure you understand. Secretary Clinton called me to go over to Iraq to talk to all the parties to see if we can find a way to achieve a residual force to be left behind. I went with Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman. We met with Mr. Allawi who’s is the Aratia party leader, the former prime minister. He is a Shia, but it was a Sunni coalition. We flew up to meet with President Barzani – not president – but Barzani, the head of the Kurds. … Then we met with Maliki.

So we had Ambassador Jeffrey – U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and Gen. Austin, the commander of Iraq forces at the time in the meeting with me, Maliki, and McCain. I asked Prime Minister Maliki, “Would you accept troops?” He says, “If other will, I will.” Then he turned to me and said, “How many troops are you talking about?” I turned to Gen. Austin and then Ambassador Jeffrey – “What’s the answer to the prime minister’s question?” Gen. Dreyfuss says, “We’re still working on the number.” The number went from 18,000 recommended by Austin down to 3,000 coming out of the White House.

General Dempsey answered Senator McCain’s question and my question as to how the numbers went down – “What is because the Iraqis suggest too many?” He said, “No, the cascading numbers came from the White House.” I was there. They were all ready to accept a residual force. But when you get below 3,000, it was a joke. And we got the answer we wanted. I was on the ground. I asked the question. I heard the answer from Gen. Austin – the White House hasn’t made up their mind, yet.

We lost Iraq on March 20 2003 when President Bush chose to invade on the flimsiest of reasons. Wow, blaming Obama for the result of current events extant from Bushes poor judgment, that astounds me.

Where were you when Obama declared the war over but didn't tell that to the enemy?

.

Um, excuse me. I seem to remember things differently. America invaded Iraq in 03. No WMD's like GW Bush promised. I remember the line about "Not being in the business of nation building" too. Mistakes were made alright. What Obama did after the fact, rather weak and flaccid excuse for what's happening NOW.

Was I talking about 03?


Why do you still want to apologize for Obama Declaring the war over?


That was supposed to be his legacy after all..

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Andylusion 14294830

Now you mentioned Hans Blix. You cited him as your credible argument. Therefore I am going to cite Hans Blix myself, to prove my case.

The moment that you cited Hans Blix, you lost the entire argument. You are so wrong there is no excuse for it.

My argument has no dependency on whatever you might cite that Dr Blix said. Dr Blix did not ever report Saddam Hussein in violation of 1441.

I quoted Bush in October stating that he wanted to disarm Iraq peacefully. What you cited from Blix does not excuse Bush to disarm Iraq violently.

Bush lied and troops died, plus 125,000 Iraqis.

The USA had no legal right to invade Iraq, the UN refusing to authorize action on the Resolution.

Not a God Damn person in America gives a fuck what the UN thinks except commie bleeding heart pinkos like yourself...


.

 

[Andylusion]

Andylusion 14292942

But going into the war, anyone that suggests we didn't have cause, or reason, or justification for doing so, is just ignorant.

What was the threat from Iraq to our national security? What UNSC resolutions was Bush enforcing by bombing and invading Iraq?

It was outlined in the resolution 1441, I cited in the above post. They were in violation of the cease fire agreement, agreed to at the end of the first gulf war.

Moreover, it was believed that Iraq was seeking to pass off weapons to a 3rd party group.


Bill Clinton himself outlined this in 1998. Now Bill bowed to public opinion over national security. Bush did not. And you hate him for it.

 

[rightwinger]

Senator Lindsey Graham explains how Obama lost Iraq by refusing to keep troops in Iraq. The myth that it was Bush's fault is exactly that, a myth. graham and McCain were part of the group sent over to negotiate the status of forces agreement and he explained how it went with Hugh Hewitt, Lawyer, law professor, author and radio host....

Who Lost Iraq Power Line


Lindsey Graham: I think it was our fault. The president got the answer he wanted when it comes to troop levels. He wanted zero. He got zero. He promised to end the War in Iraq. He actually lost the War in Iraq.

But this is something that most people don’t know. I want to make sure you understand. Secretary Clinton called me to go over to Iraq to talk to all the parties to see if we can find a way to achieve a residual force to be left behind. I went with Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman. We met with Mr. Allawi who’s is the Aratia party leader, the former prime minister. He is a Shia, but it was a Sunni coalition. We flew up to meet with President Barzani – not president – but Barzani, the head of the Kurds. … Then we met with Maliki.

So we had Ambassador Jeffrey – U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and Gen. Austin, the commander of Iraq forces at the time in the meeting with me, Maliki, and McCain. I asked Prime Minister Maliki, “Would you accept troops?” He says, “If other will, I will.” Then he turned to me and said, “How many troops are you talking about?” I turned to Gen. Austin and then Ambassador Jeffrey – “What’s the answer to the prime minister’s question?” Gen. Dreyfuss says, “We’re still working on the number.” The number went from 18,000 recommended by Austin down to 3,000 coming out of the White House.

General Dempsey answered Senator McCain’s question and my question as to how the numbers went down – “What is because the Iraqis suggest too many?” He said, “No, the cascading numbers came from the White House.” I was there. They were all ready to accept a residual force. But when you get below 3,000, it was a joke. And we got the answer we wanted. I was on the ground. I asked the question. I heard the answer from Gen. Austin – the White House hasn’t made up their mind, yet.

We lost Iraq on March 20 2003 when President Bush chose to invade on the flimsiest of reasons. Wow, blaming Obama for the result of current events extant from Bushes poor judgment, that astounds me.

Where were you when Obama declared the war over but didn't tell that to the enemy?

.

Um, excuse me. I seem to remember things differently. America invaded Iraq in 03. No WMD's like GW Bush promised. I remember the line about "Not being in the business of nation building" too. Mistakes were made alright. What Obama did after the fact, rather weak and flaccid excuse for what's happening NOW.

Was I talking about 03?


Why do you still want to apologize for Obama Declaring the war over?


That was supposed to be his legacy after all..

.

Bush declared the war over.....mission accomplished

 

[JakeStarkey]

Andylusion 14294830

Now you mentioned Hans Blix. You cited him as your credible argument. Therefore I am going to cite Hans Blix myself, to prove my case.

The moment that you cited Hans Blix, you lost the entire argument. You are so wrong there is no excuse for it.

My argument has no dependency on whatever you might cite that Dr Blix said. Dr Blix did not ever report Saddam Hussein in violation of 1441.

I quoted Bush in October stating that he wanted to disarm Iraq peacefully. What you cited from Blix does not excuse Bush to disarm Iraq violently.

Bush lied and troops died, plus 125,000 Iraqis.

The USA had no legal right to invade Iraq, the UN refusing to authorize action on the Resolution.

Not a God Damn person in America gives a fuck what the UN thinks except commie bleeding heart pinkos like yourself....

Actually more of us than of you care about America acting illegally, particularly when there was no need for war. Don't ever mention the Resolution if you don't want that argument to have the shit kicked out of it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Senator Lindsey Graham explains how Obama lost Iraq by refusing to keep troops in Iraq. The myth that it was Bush's fault is exactly that, a myth. graham and McCain were part of the group sent over to negotiate the status of forces agreement and he explained how it went with Hugh Hewitt, Lawyer, law professor, author and radio host....

Who Lost Iraq Power Line


Lindsey Graham: I think it was our fault. The president got the answer he wanted when it comes to troop levels. He wanted zero. He got zero. He promised to end the War in Iraq. He actually lost the War in Iraq.

But this is something that most people don’t know. I want to make sure you understand. Secretary Clinton called me to go over to Iraq to talk to all the parties to see if we can find a way to achieve a residual force to be left behind. I went with Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman. We met with Mr. Allawi who’s is the Aratia party leader, the former prime minister. He is a Shia, but it was a Sunni coalition. We flew up to meet with President Barzani – not president – but Barzani, the head of the Kurds. … Then we met with Maliki.

So we had Ambassador Jeffrey – U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and Gen. Austin, the commander of Iraq forces at the time in the meeting with me, Maliki, and McCain. I asked Prime Minister Maliki, “Would you accept troops?” He says, “If other will, I will.” Then he turned to me and said, “How many troops are you talking about?” I turned to Gen. Austin and then Ambassador Jeffrey – “What’s the answer to the prime minister’s question?” Gen. Dreyfuss says, “We’re still working on the number.” The number went from 18,000 recommended by Austin down to 3,000 coming out of the White House.

General Dempsey answered Senator McCain’s question and my question as to how the numbers went down – “What is because the Iraqis suggest too many?” He said, “No, the cascading numbers came from the White House.” I was there. They were all ready to accept a residual force. But when you get below 3,000, it was a joke. And we got the answer we wanted. I was on the ground. I asked the question. I heard the answer from Gen. Austin – the White House hasn’t made up their mind, yet.

We lost Iraq on March 20 2003 when President Bush chose to invade on the flimsiest of reasons. Wow, blaming Obama for the result of current events extant from Bushes poor judgment, that astounds me.

Where were you when Obama declared the war over but didn't tell that to the enemy?

.

Um, excuse me. I seem to remember things differently. America invaded Iraq in 03. No WMD's like GW Bush promised. I remember the line about "Not being in the business of nation building" too. Mistakes were made alright. What Obama did after the fact, rather weak and flaccid excuse for what's happening NOW.

Was I talking about 03?


Why do you still want to apologize for Obama Declaring the war over?


That was supposed to be his legacy after all..

.

Bush declared the war over.....mission accomplished

Was there a standing army left to fight?

Nooo...

All mop up from there and Obama refused to finish taking out the trash....


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Andylusion 14294830

Now you mentioned Hans Blix. You cited him as your credible argument. Therefore I am going to cite Hans Blix myself, to prove my case.

The moment that you cited Hans Blix, you lost the entire argument. You are so wrong there is no excuse for it.

My argument has no dependency on whatever you might cite that Dr Blix said. Dr Blix did not ever report Saddam Hussein in violation of 1441.

I quoted Bush in October stating that he wanted to disarm Iraq peacefully. What you cited from Blix does not excuse Bush to disarm Iraq violently.

Bush lied and troops died, plus 125,000 Iraqis.

The USA had no legal right to invade Iraq, the UN refusing to authorize action on the Resolution.

Not a God Damn person in America gives a fuck what the UN thinks except commie bleeding heart pinkos like yourself....

Actually more of us than of you care about America acting illegally, particularly when there was no need for war. Don't ever mention the Resolution if you don't want that argument to have the shit kicked out of it.

Prove it, lol .......

 

[JakeStarkey]

We lost Iraq on March 20 2003 when President Bush chose to invade on the flimsiest of reasons. Wow, blaming Obama for the result of current events extant from Bushes poor judgment, that astounds me.

Where were you when Obama declared the war over but didn't tell that to the enemy?

.

Um, excuse me. I seem to remember things differently. America invaded Iraq in 03. No WMD's like GW Bush promised. I remember the line about "Not being in the business of nation building" too. Mistakes were made alright. What Obama did after the fact, rather weak and flaccid excuse for what's happening NOW.

Was I talking about 03?


Why do you still want to apologize for Obama Declaring the war over?


That was supposed to be his legacy after all..

.

Bush declared the war over.....mission accomplished

Was there a standing army left to fight?

Nooo...

All mop up from there and Obama refused to finish taking out the trash....


.

Horse shit, pony soldier. Al Maliki's successor would not give Obama the necessary SOFA to protect our troops, so Obama did the right thing in bringing them home When the Iraqis got in deep doo doo again, Obama did the wrong thing in sending them back when he got the SOFA.

 

[MaryL]

A friend of mine , her boy went to Fallujah. He is still alive now. Unlike a couple of other kids I used to know that died and are forgotten in Vietnam. Long forgotten.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A friend of mine , her boy went to Fallujah. He is still alive now. Unlike a couple of other kids I used to know that died and are forgotten in Vietnam. Long forgotten.

We don't learn as a nation.

 

[MaryL]

We learn. Our so called "leaders", liberal. conservative, that is another question. I didn't vote for Bush or Obama, I feel like one of the shadow people. We all end paying the price.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You want to cite Blix Andylusion?

Cite This:

NFBW 11642067

.

Access to sites was not obstructed according to Blix:

Update 27 January 2003

.
I turn now to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq’s response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access. A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course. An initial minor step would be to adopt the long-overdue legislation required by the resolutions.

I shall deal first with cooperation on process.


Cooperation on process

It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.


Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

"Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt." BLIX Update 27 January 2003

So you like what Blix says, do you? Then why did you post such a rediculously ignorant-of- Blix argument?

Andylusion 14292886

I believe Bush hoped to avoid violence. I don't think he lied at all. The problem is, Saddam refused to allow unconditional weapons inspections.

Who's right and actually knows what they are talking about as an expert on UNSC WMD inspections?

Blix? "The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect."

Or

Andylusion? "The problem is, Saddam refused to allow unconditional weapons inspections."


Andylusion 14294830

Now you mentioned Hans Blix. You cited him as your credible argument. Therefore I am going to cite Hans Blix myself, to prove my case.

The moment that you cited Hans Blix, you lost the entire argument. You are so wrong there is no excuse for it.

Who is wrong Andy?

Is that enough Blix for you? Or do you want more?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Not a God Damn person in America gives a fuck what the UN thinks except commie bleeding heart pinkos like yourself...

Is Bush a bleeding heart pinko because he ceded protecting the national security of the USA to the UN to disarm Iraq peacefully - because war was his last option?

Or was Bush lying on October 16 2002 because he doesn't want warmongers like bear539 to accuse him of being a bleeding heart pinko?

NFBW 14292189

"THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I have told the Prime Minister that my hope is, is that we could achieve a disarmament of the Iraqi regime peacefully. I haven't given up on the fact that we can achieve it peacefully. We have no plans to use our military until -- unless we need to. I explained to the Prime Minister, just like I explain to every citizen who is interested in this, the military is my last choice, not my first choice.

Why did Bush go through the UN to disarm Iraq, bear? He certainly chose the UN to disarm Iraq peacefully in order to avoid using military force against Iraq. The question still is why did Bush terminate the 1441 inspections if he really did not want to use military force as he said.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Senator Lindsey Graham explains how Obama lost Iraq by refusing to keep troops in Iraq. The myth that it was Bush's fault is exactly that, a myth. graham and McCain were part of the group sent over to negotiate the status of forces agreement and he explained how it went with Hugh Hewitt, Lawyer, law professor, author and radio host....

Who Lost Iraq Power Line


Lindsey Graham: I think it was our fault. The president got the answer he wanted when it comes to troop levels. He wanted zero. He got zero. He promised to end the War in Iraq. He actually lost the War in Iraq.

But this is something that most people don’t know. I want to make sure you understand. Secretary Clinton called me to go over to Iraq to talk to all the parties to see if we can find a way to achieve a residual force to be left behind. I went with Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman. We met with Mr. Allawi who’s is the Aratia party leader, the former prime minister. He is a Shia, but it was a Sunni coalition. We flew up to meet with President Barzani – not president – but Barzani, the head of the Kurds. … Then we met with Maliki.

So we had Ambassador Jeffrey – U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and Gen. Austin, the commander of Iraq forces at the time in the meeting with me, Maliki, and McCain. I asked Prime Minister Maliki, “Would you accept troops?” He says, “If other will, I will.” Then he turned to me and said, “How many troops are you talking about?” I turned to Gen. Austin and then Ambassador Jeffrey – “What’s the answer to the prime minister’s question?” Gen. Dreyfuss says, “We’re still working on the number.” The number went from 18,000 recommended by Austin down to 3,000 coming out of the White House.

General Dempsey answered Senator McCain’s question and my question as to how the numbers went down – “What is because the Iraqis suggest too many?” He said, “No, the cascading numbers came from the White House.” I was there. They were all ready to accept a residual force. But when you get below 3,000, it was a joke. And we got the answer we wanted. I was on the ground. I asked the question. I heard the answer from Gen. Austin – the White House hasn’t made up their mind, yet.

We lost Iraq on March 20 2003 when President Bush chose to invade on the flimsiest of reasons. Wow, blaming Obama for the result of current events extant from Bushes poor judgment, that astounds me.

Where were you when Obama declared the war over but didn't tell that to the enemy?

.

Um, excuse me. I seem to remember things differently. America invaded Iraq in 03. No WMD's like GW Bush promised. I remember the line about "Not being in the business of nation building" too. Mistakes were made alright. What Obama did after the fact, rather weak and flaccid excuse for what's happening NOW.

Was I talking about 03?


Why do you still want to apologize for Obama Declaring the war over?


That was supposed to be his legacy after all..

.

The war was over.

The Iraqi government wanted us out. The Iraqi people wanted us out. The American people wanted us out.

Get over it. ODS is rotting your brains.

 

[Andylusion]

We had been dealing with Saddam since 1991. The fact we waited 12 years before dealing with him, shows we used violence as a last resort. You morons act like the whole thing started in 2002, and Bush only gave him a year. We gave him 12 years. He had TWELVE YEARS to prove he had destroyed all his WMDs, and he refused.

But Bush said in October 2002 he wanted to resolve the WMD threat peacefully through the UN. In November 2002 he authorized the ambassador to the UN to vote yes for UNSC Resolution 1441 which gave Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to comply with all UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq's WMD obligations under international law. Resolution 1441 was about a peaceful resolution and no war. Bush agreed with the language. War was not necessary at that point. Iraq could not have been a threat at that time. Bush deferred protecting the national security of the United States to the UNSC.

What happened after November 2002 that Iraq became a threat to the United States? There were 200 UN inspectors inside Iraq and they went wherever they wanted whenever they wanted.

What was the threat that arose after bush ceded the disarming of Iraq to the UNSC?

Can you define it?

You say Saddam Hussein "had TWELVE YEARS to prove he had destroyed all his WMDs, and he refused"

After November 2002
Saddam Hussein did not refuse. What is your source that tells you he refused or obstructed the inspectors in any way after the inspectors were let back in during December 2002.

SH also invited the CIA to come in to help the inspectors to locate the stockpikes of WMD the CIA suspected was there.

How was that a threat to U.S. National Security?

I don't know anyone who thought Iraq was a threat at that specific moment. The whole point was to stop him before he became a threat.

The hijackers who flew the four planes on 9/11 "could not have been a threat at that time" during the year before. It wasn't until they were in plane, taking control of the aircraft, that suddenly they "became a threat to the United States".

If Saddam was making chemical weapons, or biological weapons, or any kind of bomb, dirty, nuclear or otherwise... you don't want to wait until 5 minutes before he starts loading warheads on mid-range missiles, or passing them off to terror networks, to suddenly think they could become " a threat to the United States".

Do you see the problem? Yeah, he wasn't a threat RIGHT THEN. That's the point. We wanted to prevent him from becoming a threat. And no matter what you know now in retrospect, the intelligence information AT THAT TIME, was that Saddam was attempting to gain WMDs.

Did Bush wish for him to disarm peacefully? Yeah, I still believe that. That quote you are citing was in October of 2002. Hans Blix responded to Iraq's declaration in November, when he said there was nothing new in the declaration, and that there was no new evidence given by Saddam, to support his disarmament. I personally remember that happening.

That was it dude. After 12 years of Saddam lying, denying, and refusing to comply, he gave the same crap all over again, and we had enough. That was his chance. Saddam had a chance to prove he disarmed, and Hans Blix said it was crap.

I'm sure that is what clinched it for Bush, and it certainly did for me. Who said Saddam was full of it? Hans Blix. I just posted his response to the Iraqi declaration to the UN resolution. Read what Hans Blix said. It's pretty clear.

 

[Andylusion]

Senator Lindsey Graham explains how Obama lost Iraq by refusing to keep troops in Iraq. The myth that it was Bush's fault is exactly that, a myth. graham and McCain were part of the group sent over to negotiate the status of forces agreement and he explained how it went with Hugh Hewitt, Lawyer, law professor, author and radio host....

Who Lost Iraq Power Line


Lindsey Graham: I think it was our fault. The president got the answer he wanted when it comes to troop levels. He wanted zero. He got zero. He promised to end the War in Iraq. He actually lost the War in Iraq.

But this is something that most people don’t know. I want to make sure you understand. Secretary Clinton called me to go over to Iraq to talk to all the parties to see if we can find a way to achieve a residual force to be left behind. I went with Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman. We met with Mr. Allawi who’s is the Aratia party leader, the former prime minister. He is a Shia, but it was a Sunni coalition. We flew up to meet with President Barzani – not president – but Barzani, the head of the Kurds. … Then we met with Maliki.

So we had Ambassador Jeffrey – U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and Gen. Austin, the commander of Iraq forces at the time in the meeting with me, Maliki, and McCain. I asked Prime Minister Maliki, “Would you accept troops?” He says, “If other will, I will.” Then he turned to me and said, “How many troops are you talking about?” I turned to Gen. Austin and then Ambassador Jeffrey – “What’s the answer to the prime minister’s question?” Gen. Dreyfuss says, “We’re still working on the number.” The number went from 18,000 recommended by Austin down to 3,000 coming out of the White House.

General Dempsey answered Senator McCain’s question and my question as to how the numbers went down – “What is because the Iraqis suggest too many?” He said, “No, the cascading numbers came from the White House.” I was there. They were all ready to accept a residual force. But when you get below 3,000, it was a joke. And we got the answer we wanted. I was on the ground. I asked the question. I heard the answer from Gen. Austin – the White House hasn’t made up their mind, yet.

We lost Iraq on March 20 2003 when President Bush chose to invade on the flimsiest of reasons. Wow, blaming Obama for the result of current events extant from Bushes poor judgment, that astounds me.

Where were you when Obama declared the war over but didn't tell that to the enemy?

.

Um, excuse me. I seem to remember things differently. America invaded Iraq in 03. No WMD's like GW Bush promised. I remember the line about "Not being in the business of nation building" too. Mistakes were made alright. What Obama did after the fact, rather weak and flaccid excuse for what's happening NOW.

Well nation building, I would agree with you. There were people in the administration that somehow moronically thought this would be a walk in the park. They could go in, blow stuff up, leaving, and everything would be peachy. They were wrong.

So on that point, you win.

As far as WMD's, two problems. First, that is what the intelligence at the time suggested. The Senate investigation into pre-war media reports, showed that every single thing that Bush said, was backed and supported by the intelligence information available at that time.

Rockefeller, and his investigation team, wrote the report. If you are telling me that Bush lied, then nearly everyone everywhere lied too. Which means you can't blame Bush anyway. Everyone... everywhere, believed it was true. The Rockefeller report makes that clear.

Second, we found WMDs. Do so basic research. It's not hard.

We treated soldiers with chemical weapons injuries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/w...ndling-of-chemical-weapon-exposure-cases.html

Are you suggesting that Iraq war veterans are all lying? They are what... collecting free health care, with false claims of being affected by chemical weapons?

"oh but those weapons were old weapons!"

Whether they are old weapons or not, doesn't matter. That's the whole point. The cease-fire agreement said that Saddam would eliminate his entire WMD stock piles. He did not. That is a "fact". Old, or new, doesn't matter. The fact we are treating soldiers with chemical weapons damage, proves Bush was right. He did have chemical weapons, in violation of the UN inspections, and the cease-fire agreement.

You want to deny it, that's fine. But that just makes you what is known as "wrong".

 

[Andylusion]

Andylusion 14294830

Now you mentioned Hans Blix. You cited him as your credible argument. Therefore I am going to cite Hans Blix myself, to prove my case.

The moment that you cited Hans Blix, you lost the entire argument. You are so wrong there is no excuse for it.

My argument has no dependency on whatever you might cite that Dr Blix said. Dr Blix did not ever report Saddam Hussein in violation of 1441.

I quoted Bush in October stating that he wanted to disarm Iraq peacefully. What you cited from Blix does not excuse Bush to disarm Iraq violently.

Crazy Forum poster - "Hans Blix said after the war......"

Me - "Fine but here's what Hans Blix said before the war...."

Crazy Forum poster - "Well... yeah... but... My argument doesn't depend on Hans Blix"

I knew you were going to say that. You people are so predictable, I could write your posts for you people.

You can't be in violation of a resolution saying you were in violation. How can you be violating something saying you are violating a prior resolution?

That's a double negative.

The only thing Hans Blix could do, was say that the declaration that Iraq gave in November actually brought Iraq into agreement with the prior resolutions. The fact he was already violating prior resolutions, was a given.

Hans Blix did not say this. In fact the opposite. Read what he said. Iraq's prior declarations were all crap, filled with lies, and failed to meet the requirements of the disarming resolution, and that this new declaration did nothing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, SH was not a threat.

No, SH was not going to become a threat.

No, the UN did not authorize the US to enforce the Resolution.

No, the USA had no authority to enforce the Resolution.

Yes, the USA committed war crimes by invading Iraq.

Yes, Bush is responsible for what the ME is today.

 

[Kosh]

Obama is a failure of epic proportions..

See how the far left will watch the world burn than admit to it..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama is a failure of epic proportions. See how the far left will watch the world burn than admit to it..

Two American armies failed, Kosh, one under Bush and the other under Obama. The invasion was wrong and it is a failure.