But it's OK. You can still blame some vast Jewish conspiracy for all of your failures in life.
Zionists are extremists cloaked in the guise of theocracy , who use antisemitism as a shield.
they are not to be confused with race or religion
~S~
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But it's OK. You can still blame some vast Jewish conspiracy for all of your failures in life.
In fact Blix wasn't allowed to inspect possible WMD sites on most or all occasions and that's why there was never a professional declaration that Saddam had no WMDs.We only found out that Saddam didn't have stockpiles of WMDs because we invaded and discovered the facilities were a hoax designed to threaten the planet. Had we not invaded, it's impossible to say how he would have continued to manipulate other countries.
Um... No. IN fact, the IAEA and Hans Blix and Scott Ritter all told Bush in advance that Saddam's weapons programs had already been effectively neutered. The guy didn't even control all of his own country, he was essentially the Mayor of Baghdad at that point.
But the Zionists wanted him gone, and we made getting rid of him a top priority, even though it made the ME more unstable.
n fact Blix wasn't allowed to inspect possible WMD sites on most or all occasions and that's why there was never a professional declaration that Saddam had no WMDs.
In fact, Blix wouldnt have tried to inspect if he had no prospect of finding anything.
In fact Hillary, Biden, and Kerry all voted to attack Iraq, as did many Democrats.
In fact, the UN and all NATO countries believed Saddam had WMD stockpiles.
In fact, Saddam had the capability make WMDs, just no stockpiles.
In fact we only found Saddam had no stockpiles after invading and checking.
In fact, siding with America's enemy is a constant with the Left.
That's really stupid rant.n fact Blix wasn't allowed to inspect possible WMD sites on most or all occasions and that's why there was never a professional declaration that Saddam had no WMDs.
In fact, Blix wouldnt have tried to inspect if he had no prospect of finding anything.
In fact Hillary, Biden, and Kerry all voted to attack Iraq, as did many Democrats.
In fact, the UN and all NATO countries believed Saddam had WMD stockpiles.
In fact, Saddam had the capability make WMDs, just no stockpiles.
In fact we only found Saddam had no stockpiles after invading and checking.
In fact, siding with America's enemy is a constant with the Left.
Wow... so many things wrong.
Democrats gave Bush the authority to go to war, if diplomacy failed... They didn't think that he'd go to war without a good reason, but he did.
Saddam didn't have the capability to make weapons at all.
As far a America's Enemy, let's not forget, it was Ronald Reagan who armed Saddam to begin with... until he turned on us. Reagan also armed Bin Laden and the Taliban, because those Rooskies might teach Afghan Girls to Read or something.
That's really stupid rant.
You're actually saying Democrats voted to go to war but but didn't really want to go to war? That's really stupid, even for a Leftist.
It's good to know you always supported Russian interests over America's, and not just a recent change.
That's really stupid rant.
You're actually saying Democrats voted to go to war but but didn't really want to go to war? That's really stupid, even for a Leftist.
It's good to know you always supported Russian interests over America's, and not just a recent change.
Good Lord, how old are you? They are not our ally and have no intention of being our ally. The basic philosophy of Putin has not changed since his KGB days back in the cold war comrade. They just aren't as out front about about it. More effectively sneaky as they were during the 2016 election. Go get another shot of cheap vodka and put some more fish eggs on your cracker Ivan. I did not actually believe there were Russian trolls on this board. Now not so sure.That's really stupid rant.
It is JoeB131 you're addressing, after all. Even by normal leftist standards, that's a pretty stupid rant, but it's par for JoeB131.
You're actually saying Democrats voted to go to war but but didn't really want to go to war? That's really stupid, even for a Leftist.
It's good to know you always supported Russian interests over America's, and not just a recent change.
At least he did while they were still the biggest part of the Communist-ruled Soyúz Sovétskikh Sotsialistícheskikh Respúblik. Perhaps not so much, now that they are much less our enemy, and more our ally in most things.
Wow... so many things wrong.
Democrats gave Bush the authority to go to war, if diplomacy failed... They didn't think that he'd go to war without a good reason, but he did.
Saddam didn't have the capability to make weapons at all.
No, read the resolution..it only authorized war if all diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue failed.
Uh, only guy looking out for Russia's interests is Trump.
Great research, really quick and plentiful, but history doesn't give points without finding the weapons of mass destruction. If Bush had gone in, taken Baghdad, captured that asshole, (should have pitched a few grenades down that hole instead) , then landed on the ship, declare victory, left, and got us the hell out of there, fine. We had only lost 300 - 500 troops by that time. Instead he went for regime change, oversaw the death of 4,500plus more of our troop, never did find the massive stockpiles of WMD and never captured Osama Bin Laden in his righteous war, leaving that task for the troops under Obama. His mission creep made a lot of people rich (as wars usually do) and destabilized the entire region, to the point that we don't know how the hell we are ever getting out for there. I don't care that a lot of other people got WMDs wrong also. They were not Commander and Chief. I don't give points for being wrong, those troops are still dead, and the VA hospitals and outpatient clinics are still filled with the results of his mistake.No, read the resolution..it only authorized war if all diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue failed.
Here is that part of the resolution. Show us where it says "it only authorized war if all diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue failed".
"
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ243/PLAW-107publ243.pdf
UN Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq
Great research, really quick and plentiful, but history doesn't give points without finding the weapons of mass destruction. If Bush had gone in, taken Baghdad, captured that asshole, (should have pitched a few grenades down that hole instead) , then landed on the ship, declare victory, left, and got us the hell out of there, fine. We had only lost 300 - 500 troops by that time. Instead he went for regime change, oversaw the death of 4,500plus more of our troop, never did find the massive stockpiles of WMD and never captured Osama Bin Laden in his righteous war, leaving that task for the troops under Obama. His mission creep made a lot of people rich (as wars usually do) and destabilized the entire region, to the point that we don't know how the hell we are ever getting out for there. I don't care that a lot of other people got WMDs wrong also. They were not Commander and Chief. I don't give points for being wrong, those troops are still dead, and the VA hospitals and outpatient clinics are still filled with the results of his mistake.
The man was a worthless, evil, dangerous, murderous sonofabitch. Getting rid of him was a good thing. Business school taught me the value of the 70% solution; 70% of a problem can often be accomplished with 10% of resources and and personnel applied. Instead, Bush went for the100% solution. We didn't get there, we most likely will never get there. The lives and resources, especially the lives were not worth the product. You and I look at this from different points of view and probably always will. All I can say of your two posts, we have been involved in is, damn, I am impressed with your ability to pull resources together quickly to support your opinion whether you convince me or not. Nice work.Great research, really quick and plentiful, but history doesn't give points without finding the weapons of mass destruction. If Bush had gone in, taken Baghdad, captured that asshole, (should have pitched a few grenades down that hole instead) , then landed on the ship, declare victory, left, and got us the hell out of there, fine. We had only lost 300 - 500 troops by that time. Instead he went for regime change, oversaw the death of 4,500plus more of our troop, never did find the massive stockpiles of WMD and never captured Osama Bin Laden in his righteous war, leaving that task for the troops under Obama. His mission creep made a lot of people rich (as wars usually do) and destabilized the entire region, to the point that we don't know how the hell we are ever getting out for there. I don't care that a lot of other people got WMDs wrong also. They were not Commander and Chief. I don't give points for being wrong, those troops are still dead, and the VA hospitals and outpatient clinics are still filled with the results of his mistake.
The world, including all top Democrats, knew he had manufactured WMDs and used them on his own people.
BOMBSHELL: New York Times Reports WMDs WERE Found in Iraq!
The New York Times shockingly admitted in an explosive front page report that thousands of WMDs were found in Iraq since the start of the war:
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.
BOMBSHELL: New York Times Reports WMDs WERE Found in Iraq! - The Political Insider
###
500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq, Pentagon says
500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq, Pentagon says - CNN.com
- Story Highlights
- Pentagon: U.S. secretly shipped Iraq's low-grade uranium dating back to Hussein era
- Officials: U.S. military spent $70 million for the transport of materials to Canada
- "Yellowcake" uranium transfer was requested by the Iraqi government
###
How long did Sadam Hussein have to move his WMDs? About two years during which uninspected convoys were seen going into Iran and Syria. Did, or did not, Syria use chemical weapons on their people?
None of that means a tinker's dam today. What are we doing today and where do we go from here?
At least he did while they were still the biggest part of the Communist-ruled Soyúz Sovétskikh Sotsialistícheskikh Respúblik. Perhaps not so much, now that they are much less our enemy, and more our ally in most things.
Good Lord, how old are you? They are not our ally and have no intention of being our ally. The basic philosophy of Putin has not changed since his KGB days back in the cold war comrade. They just aren't as out front about about it. More effectively sneaky as they were during the 2016 election. Go get another shot of cheap vodka and put some more fish eggs on your cracker Ivan. I did not actually believe there were Russian trolls on this board. Now not so sure.
The world, including all top Democrats, knew he had manufactured WMDs and used them on his own people.
BOMBSHELL: New York Times Reports WMDs WERE Found in Iraq!
The New York Times shockingly admitted in an explosive front page report that thousands of WMDs were found in Iraq since the start of the war:
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.
The world, including all top Democrats, knew he had manufactured WMDs and used them on his own people.
BOMBSHELL: New York Times Reports WMDs WERE Found in Iraq!
The New York Times shockingly admitted in an explosive front page report that thousands of WMDs were found in Iraq since the start of the war:
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.
Guy, we didn't go to war over chemical shells someone buried in 1991 because they didn't know how to dispose of them.
We went to war because Saddam had Nukes, and he was going to get us all!!!!