Remember folks when you read this ...THERE WERE NEVER NEVER any WMDs!!!

[GreenBean]

AND .... they only starting claiming that Sadaams Iraq had no WMDs AFTER it became fashionable as a means to attack George W.

Prior to that the Dems were right in line claimin Hussein had WMDs ... uh that's Sadam Hussein , not .. Barrack Hussein , he just has tools

Generally speaking, the Democrats were just as full of shit about Saddam, WMD's, etc., as the Republicans.

To the devil with partisan politics in this regard - what signifies is a false casus belli (nuclear weapons focus), and the price we paid as a result.

4000 of our kids are lying the ground because we got it wrong - or because we were lied to - take your pick - both perspectives may have some merit.

Lied to, bad intel OR he managed to hide them or destroy most of them b4 we got there ... he had plenty of warning.

But Nukes were never really a major part of the picture - it's just you tools trying to rewrite History again. It's a little more difficult when its Modern History isn't it ?

That's a lie Greenbean....it WAS about WMD'S, in the form of waking up to the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud....NUKES

it WAS about yellowcake....for NUKES

it WAS about NUKES that could hit us in 45 minutes...

It is you that has conveniently forgotten what we were being told by the administration at the time....

Look everyone, liberals are now trying to claim chemical weapons were not part of the WMDs.

They also deny that saddam was putting that information out on purpose about nukes, and it was confirmed by defectors, including his two son in laws.

They clearly deny that the country simply enforced the policy of the country that had been signed by Clinton. The Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs.

They clearly will not allow themselves to see that the WAR ON TERROR was always going to be about more than getting al qaeda or bin laden.

They are shifting like the sands of Egypt right before our eyes.

No, it was not about chemical weapons that put America behind the President, it was about a NUCLEAR WMD threat that was hyped by the administration....it was about yellowcake and
Valerie Plame's husband exposing the LIE THE ADMINISTRATION WAS SAYING ON IT.... it was about waking up to a Mushroom cloud...

WE KNEW saddam had chemical weapons, and chemical weapons that were deteriorating...

Chemical weapons could not reach us here in the USA, they were of no threat to the USA that required us to start a war against a sovereign nation, and put our men out there to die for....

STOP rewriting history to make yourselves 'feel' better....now that all our guys are DEAD and MAIMED.

If you believe that so strongly - then why can't you come up with any evidence to back up your opinion . So far as Valerie Plame - give me a break ... really? are you that dense ? . She was a CIA operative - she investigated nukes and her husband looked into uranium ore and nukes coming from Niger

Lied to, bad intel OR he managed to hide them or destroy most of them b4 we got there ... he had plenty of warning.

But Nukes were never really a major part of the picture - it's just you tools trying to rewrite History again. It's a little more difficult when its Modern History isn't it ?

That's a lie Greenbean....it WAS about WMD'S, in the form of waking up to the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud....NUKES

it WAS about yellowcake....for NUKES

it WAS about NUKES that could hit us in 45 minutes...

It is you that has conveniently forgotten what we were being told by the administration at the time....

Look everyone, liberals are now trying to claim chemical weapons were not part of the WMDs.

They also deny that saddam was putting that information out on purpose about nukes, and it was confirmed by defectors, including his two son in laws.

They clearly deny that the country simply enforced the policy of the country that had been signed by Clinton. The Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs.

They clearly will not allow themselves to see that the WAR ON TERROR was always going to be about more than getting al qaeda or bin laden.

They are shifting like the sands of Egypt right before our eyes.

No, it was not about chemical weapons that put America behind the President, it was about a NUCLEAR WMD threat that was hyped by the administration....it was about yellowcake and
Valerie Plame's husband exposing the LIE THE ADMINISTRATION WAS SAYING ON IT.... it was about waking up to a Mushroom cloud...

WE KNEW saddam had chemical weapons, and chemical weapons that were deteriorating...

Chemical weapons could not reach us here in the USA, they were of no threat to the USA that required us to start a war against a sovereign nation, and put our men out there to die for....

STOP rewriting history to make yourselves 'feel' better....now that all our guys are DEAD and MAIMED.

So the far left press sold the idea of Nukes? Even though Powell cited chemical weapons and mobile chemical labs?

The press quoted what President Bush, and vice pres Cheney and condi rice, and rumsfeld and wolfowitz said..... if what the president and the administration implied about Nukes was not important, then why did the administration push the idea?

Stop clutching at straws Bimbo - You've been beaten , you're arguments are moot and subject to refute . Your facts are Junk and easy to debunk ... give it up and grow up

 

[mudwhistle]

No, it was not about chemical weapons that put America behind the President, it was about a NUCLEAR WMD threat that was hyped by the administration....it was about yellowcake and
Valerie Plame's husband exposing the LIE THE ADMINISTRATION WAS SAYING ON IT.... it was about waking up to a Mushroom cloud...

WE KNEW saddam had chemical weapons, and chemical weapons that were deteriorating...

Chemical weapons could not reach us here in the USA, they were of no threat to the USA that required us to start a war against a sovereign nation, and put our men out there to die for....

STOP rewriting history to make yourselves 'feel' better....now that all our guys are DEAD and MAIMED.

You are on ignore you miserable, double talking lying piece of shit.

You really don't like the Truth, do you?

truth is anathema to rightwingnuts

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 [Democratic Vice President Nominee 2004]


“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Democratic Senator Robert Byrd 2002 former member of the KKK, He was the longest-serving U.S. Senator and, at the time of his death.

“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

Indeed.

We knew that

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

You most certainly missed something. Chemical weapons was ALWAYS the concern with Iraq and Hussein. Nuclear weapons has been the concern with Iran.

So yes, you most certainly missed something.

The UN Weapons Inspection Team was focused upon nuclear weapons and related development programs.

UNITED NATIONS WEAPONS INSPECTORS REPORT TO SECURITY COUNCIL ON PROGRESS IN DISARMAMENT OF IRAQ Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

We did not assemble our invasion force until after Saddam had thrown out the UN Inspectors.

When Colin Powell went to the UN, his primary focus was Iraq's nuclear program, and shipments of yellowcake uranium, etc.

We did not go to war primarily with chemical nor biological weapons n the public eye, in order to sell the country on going to war, because everyone knew Saddam had had chemical and biological weapons of one kind or another - in one state of usability - for years - and one does not sell papers nor go to war over old news.

Rather, we went to war over the false flag that Saddam had a substantive and ongoing nuclear weapons development program underway, and that Saddam had kicked the UN's nuclear weapons investigators out of Iraq, in order to cover that up.

Our disagreement is merely over which (nuclear, chemical or biological) type of weapon was the primary focus for the casus belli.

I've seen nothing here to change my mind. I have zero problem with conceding this point if it turns out that I'm wrong, but I don't believe at present that I am.

And, given that President Bush, himself, is on-record (and on-video) conceding that we got it wrong - that Iraq had no substantive arsenal of WMD after all - the possibility for debate is greatly diminished, evaporating into the realm of established fact.

In any event, somebody else is going to have to pursue this, if desired - I've gotta go out-and-about in the world for the day, within a half hour or so.

I repeat, why did Qaddafi and Assad have to go and yet even after Saddam had committed so many atrocities including setting an entire oilfield on fire, sacking his neighbor Kuwait, and threatening to supply WMDs to terrorists, why was he untouchable?

 

[Kondor3]

You are on ignore you miserable, double talking lying piece of shit.

You really don't like the Truth, do you?

truth is anathema to rightwingnuts

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 [Democratic Vice President Nominee 2004]


“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Democratic Senator Robert Byrd 2002 former member of the KKK, He was the longest-serving U.S. Senator and, at the time of his death.

“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

Indeed.

We knew that

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

You most certainly missed something. Chemical weapons was ALWAYS the concern with Iraq and Hussein. Nuclear weapons has been the concern with Iran.

So yes, you most certainly missed something.

The UN Weapons Inspection Team was focused upon nuclear weapons and related development programs.

UNITED NATIONS WEAPONS INSPECTORS REPORT TO SECURITY COUNCIL ON PROGRESS IN DISARMAMENT OF IRAQ Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

We did not assemble our invasion force until after Saddam had thrown out the UN Inspectors.

When Colin Powell went to the UN, his primary focus was Iraq's nuclear program, and shipments of yellowcake uranium, etc.

We did not go to war primarily with chemical nor biological weapons n the public eye, in order to sell the country on going to war, because everyone knew Saddam had had chemical and biological weapons of one kind or another - in one state of usability - for years - and one does not sell papers nor go to war over old news.

Rather, we went to war over the false flag that Saddam had a substantive and ongoing nuclear weapons development program underway, and that Saddam had kicked the UN's nuclear weapons investigators out of Iraq, in order to cover that up.

Our disagreement is merely over which (nuclear, chemical or biological) type of weapon was the primary focus for the casus belli.

I've seen nothing here to change my mind. I have zero problem with conceding this point if it turns out that I'm wrong, but I don't believe at present that I am.

And, given that President Bush, himself, is on-record (and on-video) conceding that we got it wrong - that Iraq had no substantive arsenal of WMD after all - the possibility for debate is greatly diminished, evaporating into the realm of established fact.

In any event, somebody else is going to have to pursue this, if desired - I've gotta go out-and-about in the world for the day, within a half hour or so.

I repeat, why did Qaddafi and Assad have to go and yet even after Saddam had committed so many atrocities including setting an entire oilfield on fire, sacking his neighbor Kuwait, and threatening to supply WMDs to terrorists, why was he untouchable?

Nobody is saying he is - or should have been - untouchable.

I, for one, am merely saying that we either (a) got it wrong with respect to Iraq's nuclear program or (b) manufactured a lie - in connection with the casus belli.

I would have had little trouble with the idea of taking-out Saddam, had the justification been there - had he manifested a Clear and Present Danger, or the likely potential of a Clear and Present Danger, in the near-to-mid -term future.

Trouble is, he did not - consequently, we spent enormous amounts of blood and treasure and international goodwill and domestic unity, based upon false premises.

And - of course - coupled with a war based upon a false casus belli - we failed at nation-building, as well, and left a vacuum now being filled by ISIS-ISIL.

Not exactly one of our most brilliant moments in history.

 

[mudwhistle]

You really don't like the Truth, do you?

truth is anathema to rightwingnuts

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 [Democratic Vice President Nominee 2004]


“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Democratic Senator Robert Byrd 2002 former member of the KKK, He was the longest-serving U.S. Senator and, at the time of his death.

“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

Indeed.

We knew that

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

You most certainly missed something. Chemical weapons was ALWAYS the concern with Iraq and Hussein. Nuclear weapons has been the concern with Iran.

So yes, you most certainly missed something.

The UN Weapons Inspection Team was focused upon nuclear weapons and related development programs.

UNITED NATIONS WEAPONS INSPECTORS REPORT TO SECURITY COUNCIL ON PROGRESS IN DISARMAMENT OF IRAQ Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

We did not assemble our invasion force until after Saddam had thrown out the UN Inspectors.

When Colin Powell went to the UN, his primary focus was Iraq's nuclear program, and shipments of yellowcake uranium, etc.

We did not go to war primarily with chemical nor biological weapons n the public eye, in order to sell the country on going to war, because everyone knew Saddam had had chemical and biological weapons of one kind or another - in one state of usability - for years - and one does not sell papers nor go to war over old news.

Rather, we went to war over the false flag that Saddam had a substantive and ongoing nuclear weapons development program underway, and that Saddam had kicked the UN's nuclear weapons investigators out of Iraq, in order to cover that up.

Our disagreement is merely over which (nuclear, chemical or biological) type of weapon was the primary focus for the casus belli.

I've seen nothing here to change my mind. I have zero problem with conceding this point if it turns out that I'm wrong, but I don't believe at present that I am.

And, given that President Bush, himself, is on-record (and on-video) conceding that we got it wrong - that Iraq had no substantive arsenal of WMD after all - the possibility for debate is greatly diminished, evaporating into the realm of established fact.

In any event, somebody else is going to have to pursue this, if desired - I've gotta go out-and-about in the world for the day, within a half hour or so.

I repeat, why did Qaddafi and Assad have to go and yet even after Saddam had committed so many atrocities including setting an entire oilfield on fire, sacking his neighbor Kuwait, and threatening to supply WMDs to terrorists, why was he untouchable?

Nobody is saying he is - or should have been - untouchable.

I, for one, am merely saying that we either (a) got it wrong with respect to Iraq's nuclear program or (b) manufactured a lie - in connection with the casus belli.

I would have had little trouble with the idea of taking-out Saddam, had the justification been there - had he manifested a Clear and Present Danger, or the likely potential of a Clear and Present Danger, in the near-to-mid -term future.

Trouble is, he did not - consequently, we spent enormous amounts of blood and treasure and international goodwill and domestic unity, based upon false premises.

And - of course - coupled with a war based upon a false casus belli - we failed at nation-building, as well, and left a vacuum now being filled by ISIS-ISIL.

Not exactly one of our most brilliant moments in history.

And the wars against Assad and Qaddafi are based on some truth?

Obama supplied nothing to justify going after them. Nobody seems to care.


. I saw what Saddam has done. Personally. Believe me when I say this; We had a ton of reasons to take him out. His weapons programs were excuses that the powers that be felt might make it justifiable. He was a threat to his neighbors and to our interests, and he was just begging to get his butt kicked. Like it or not, thems the facts.

 

[BlindBoo]

Apparently ISIS now controls a chemical weapon plant.

It turns out that Bush was telling the truth all along, and that the communist democrats were the ones lying.

Whoopsie.

{WASHINGTON -- A New York Times report confirms that the U.S. government knew that an Iraqi facility now controlled by the Islamic State militant organization likely contained deadly chemical weapons -- a finding reported by The Huffington Post on Monday.}

ISIS Likely Captured Iraqi Chemical Weapons New York Times Confirms

Turns out that fucking pile of shit Obama has been lying all along...

Just more fall out from the Bush inspired Iraq Civil War. As confirmed by your Huffington Post piece.

 

[BlindBoo]

Liberals are everywhere on this thread. I know Kondor is not a liberal, but he can clearly see how liberals always claimed saddam did not even have chemical weapons. I am not sure why he is denying that when he says EVERYONE knew he had chemical weapons.

The left claimed he had NOTHING.

Also, I am not sure why Kondor would deny that saddam put out information (on purpose) that he was trying to get nuclear weapons. He clearly had the infrastructure in place for a reason, as confirmed by UNSCOM.

The country clearly made it a policy by signing the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs under Clinton for a reason. Then again, the left does not or care that Clinton awarded Halliburton at least 4 no bid contracts. Just to further illustrate how pathetic liberals are, and how they do not stand for shit. They are an utter waste of my time.

Kondor, I am little surprised at you though.

Owl, my own personal position is entirely disconnected from standard Liberal fare - it merely and coincidentally overlaps a bit here and there - not to worry.

Liberals can deny Saddam had chemical weapons 'til the cows come home, but their use against Iran, and domestically, informed rational, objective minds worldwide, that Saddam did, indeed, have chemical weapons - in some stage of utility or another - to deny that is folly - a folly in which I, for one, would not engage.

Also, please show where I denied that Saddam intentionally put out information that he was, indeed, seeking nuclear capability. Upon review, you'll find quite the opposite, with me claiming that Saddam's 'leaked information' was the biggest bluff since the invention of Falsies.

As for the rest, I'll repeat what I said earlier - I don't give a rat's fat ass which party(ies) were responsible for Stage A or B or C of our eventual incursion into Iraq.

What I care about is the sincerity and legitimacy of the casus belli and 4000 dead American kids and 32000 wounded American kids and untold deaths and shattered lives amongst the Coalition and our Mercs and Iraqi civilians et al.

I am no Liberal, but I am also no Conservative - merely a Centrist with a strong Conservative lean.

When I feel sufficiently strongly about something that others perceive as a Liberal -like position, I'll pursue that just as vigorously as I would a more Conservative talking point.

That's the beauty of being an Independent, and a Centrist, when you get right down to it.

However, upon examination, other than my harping upon the Nuclear Weapons emphasis embedded in the casus belli, my position is, in actuality, not very Liberal -like.

Who is denying that Saddam had and used chemical weapon in the 1980's. I mean even before he was enable by Raygun into developing more advanced chemical and biological weapons, he had Mustard gas.

The claim by the Bush administration was that he had already revived his programs and was actively producing and stockpiling massive quantities.

 

[jillian]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

and i'm pretty sure we didn't go to war over a few chemical weapons... if that was the plan, that's an awful lot of people dead for absolutely no reason.

 

[jillian]

Apparently ISIS now controls a chemical weapon plant.

It turns out that Bush was telling the truth all along, and that the communist democrats were the ones lying.

Whoopsie.

{WASHINGTON -- A New York Times report confirms that the U.S. government knew that an Iraqi facility now controlled by the Islamic State militant organization likely contained deadly chemical weapons -- a finding reported by The Huffington Post on Monday.}

ISIS Likely Captured Iraqi Chemical Weapons New York Times Confirms

Turns out that fucking pile of shit Obama has been lying all along...

Just more fall out from the Bush inspired Iraq Civil War. As confirmed by your Huffington Post piece.

shrub was told then what the outcome would be if he went to Baghdad.... he didn't care.

 

[mudwhistle]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

and i'm pretty sure we didn't go to war over a few chemical weapons... if that was the plan, that's an awful lot of people dead for absolutely no reason.

What was the reason for taking out Qaddafi?

 

[Mac1958]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

and i'm pretty sure we didn't go to war over a few chemical weapons... if that was the plan, that's an awful lot of people dead for absolutely no reason.

If Bush & Co. had told us we were going to war over sarin or some stockpile of other chemical weapons, we would have told him to shove it.

They used the term "mushroom cloud", we were terrified about nukes, and that's it.

This was never about sarin or nation-building. None of the spin of the apologists can change that.

.

 

[GreenBean]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

and i'm pretty sure we didn't go to war over a few chemical weapons... if that was the plan, that's an awful lot of people dead for absolutely no reason.

There really should be a minimum intelligence requirement b4 they allow people to post here - where did they find this half wit Jillian ? ... I mean Starkey and Daws are bad enough but this one isn't even entertaining - I think she thinks she's "Special" .

 

[Redfish]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

and i'm pretty sure we didn't go to war over a few chemical weapons... if that was the plan, that's an awful lot of people dead for absolutely no reason.

Yes, going into Iraq was a stupid waste of lives and money. Both parties authorized and funded it. Both parties, the UN, and most of the world believed the bad intel about WMDs. We accomplished nothing.

We also accomplished nothing in Kennedy and Johnson's viet nam war where 58,000 americans died for nothing.

Why are we unable to learn from history? And, this is not a partisan issue, both parties bear equal blame.

Until you on the left, and some on the right, get over the partisan bullshit, we will continue to kill our young for nothing.

 

[GreenBean]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

and i'm pretty sure we didn't go to war over a few chemical weapons... if that was the plan, that's an awful lot of people dead for absolutely no reason.

If Bush & Co. had told us we were going to war over sarin or some stockpile of other chemical weapons, we would have told him to shove it.

They used the term "mushroom cloud", we were terrified about nukes, and that's it.

This was never about sarin or nation-building. None of the spin of the apologists can change that.

.

That's just it buddy boy - that's not what was said .... anybody who didn't know what WMD were , was an idiot ...hmmmm idiot ....... I forgot we're dealing with Liberals.... never mind ... carry on

 

[Redfish]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

and i'm pretty sure we didn't go to war over a few chemical weapons... if that was the plan, that's an awful lot of people dead for absolutely no reason.

If Bush & Co. had told us we were going to war over sarin or some stockpile of other chemical weapons, we would have told him to shove it.

They used the term "mushroom cloud", we were terrified about nukes, and that's it.

This was never about sarin or nation-building. None of the spin of the apologists can change that.

.

did you forget the UN resolutions? Was the UN lying ?

 

[jillian]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

and i'm pretty sure we didn't go to war over a few chemical weapons... if that was the plan, that's an awful lot of people dead for absolutely no reason.

If Bush & Co. had told us we were going to war over sarin or some stockpile of other chemical weapons, we would have told him to shove it.

They used the term "mushroom cloud", we were terrified about nukes, and that's it.

This was never about sarin or nation-building. None of the spin of the apologists can change that.

.

did you forget the UN resolutions? Was the UN lying ?

the UN was LIED TO... or did you forget Colin Powell standing there with pretend yellowcake?

you might also want to use the google and look up the final report of hans blix, the UN inspector.

thanks.

 

[GreenBean]

most of the world believed the bad intel about WMDs.

In 2008 MSNBC reports the US removed 550 metric tons of yellowcake(Used to make nuclear weapons) from Iraq. This is the same yellowcake Joe Wilson, husband of Valerie Plame said Saddam never tried to get.

I hope George W. Bush is not waiting for an apology from the democrats who called him a liar.

 

[Mac1958]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

and i'm pretty sure we didn't go to war over a few chemical weapons... if that was the plan, that's an awful lot of people dead for absolutely no reason.

If Bush & Co. had told us we were going to war over sarin or some stockpile of other chemical weapons, we would have told him to shove it.

They used the term "mushroom cloud", we were terrified about nukes, and that's it.

This was never about sarin or nation-building. None of the spin of the apologists can change that.

.

That's just it buddy boy - that's not what was said .... anybody who didn't know what WMD were , was an idiot ...hmmmm idiot ....... I forgot we're dealing with Liberals.... never mind ... carry on

And what are you, the male version of EconChick, nothing more than personal insults and name-calling?

You know damn well they talked about mushroom clouds.

Grow up.

.

 

[Mac1958]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

and i'm pretty sure we didn't go to war over a few chemical weapons... if that was the plan, that's an awful lot of people dead for absolutely no reason.

If Bush & Co. had told us we were going to war over sarin or some stockpile of other chemical weapons, we would have told him to shove it.

They used the term "mushroom cloud", we were terrified about nukes, and that's it.

This was never about sarin or nation-building. None of the spin of the apologists can change that.

.

did you forget the UN resolutions? Was the UN lying ?

Don't know, don't care.

No one forced us to go in. Not the UN, not Congress.

That was the decision of the Commander In Chief ALONE.

And here we are.

.

 

[jillian]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

and i'm pretty sure we didn't go to war over a few chemical weapons... if that was the plan, that's an awful lot of people dead for absolutely no reason.

If Bush & Co. had told us we were going to war over sarin or some stockpile of other chemical weapons, we would have told him to shove it.

They used the term "mushroom cloud", we were terrified about nukes, and that's it.

This was never about sarin or nation-building. None of the spin of the apologists can change that.

.

I don't see anyplace we disagree on that one.

i'm also going to point out that bush violated congress' Iraq resolution by not coming back after the UN Inspector's report and never engaged in diplomacy before invading, as bush was required to by congress.

 

[jillian]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

and i'm pretty sure we didn't go to war over a few chemical weapons... if that was the plan, that's an awful lot of people dead for absolutely no reason.

If Bush & Co. had told us we were going to war over sarin or some stockpile of other chemical weapons, we would have told him to shove it.

They used the term "mushroom cloud", we were terrified about nukes, and that's it.

This was never about sarin or nation-building. None of the spin of the apologists can change that.

.

That's just it buddy boy - that's not what was said .... anybody who didn't know what WMD were , was an idiot ...hmmmm idiot ....... I forgot we're dealing with Liberals.... never mind ... carry on

you think Mac is a "liberal"?

lmao...

damn, you're stupid.