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

[NotfooledbyW]

HM 10004190

Time lines AFTER Naji Sabri Minister letter submission to the UN on...

November 8, 2002 - The U.N. Security Council passes Resolution 1441.

There you go Healthmyths. Your argument is fatally flawed. That passage gave Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to comply on disarmament matters. There is no language in 1441 that matches what you have conjured out of thin air. Iraq had to satisfy the inspectors sufficiently that they could verify compliance and Iraq did. It is not being a Saddam lover to accept the truth. Why do you despise the truth so much. Not even George Bush will lie and say the weapons were found or moved. Why do his minions keep doing it.

 

[healthmyths]

HM 10004190

Time lines AFTER Naji Sabri Minister letter submission to the UN on...

November 8, 2002 - The U.N. Security Council passes Resolution 1441.

There you go Healthmyths. Your argument is fatally flawed. That passage gave Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to comply on disarmament matters. There is no language in 1441 that matches what you have conjured out of thin air. Iraq had to satisfy the inspectors sufficiently that they could verify compliance and Iraq did. It is not being a Saddam lover to accept the truth. Why do you despise the truth so much. Not even George Bush will lie and say the weapons were found or moved. Why do his minions keep doing it.

I conjured nothing. Because Saddam /Naji Never said they destroyed WMDs.... just said they didn't possess.

Inspectors NEVER found ANY proof WMDs were destroyed. Surely something as important would be documented by observers of the destruction but there never were any documents that clearly stated Iraq destroyed their WMDs.

The IAEA reports that all sensitive nuclear materials were removed, and that facilities and equipment were dismantled or destroyed. Activities uncovered and destroyed included:

• an industrial scale complex for Electromagnetic Isotope Separation (EMIS), a process for producing enriched uranium. The complex was designed for the installation of 90 separators; before the Gulf War, eight were functional. If all separators had been installed, the plant could have produced 15 kg of highly enriched uranium per year, possibly enough for one nuclear weapon.
  
  
• a large scale manufacturing and testing facility--the Al Furat Project--designed for the production of centrifuges, used in another method of uranium enrichment.
  
  
• facilities and equipment for the production of weapons components.
  
  
• computer simulations of nuclear weapons detonations
  
  
• storage of large quantities of HMX high explosive used in nuclear weapons.
  

Gonna make this BIG AND LOUD OK???

BUT NO PROOF that WMDs were DESTROYED!
Do you see any documentation in the above of what they found of "DESTRUCTION of WMDs?

The Commission said that the production rate of Botulinum toxin could be as much as double the stated amount, and 3 times greater than that stated for Bacillus anthracis spores.

Iraq claimed that it unilaterally destroyed more than 7500 liters of the Botulinum toxin and 3412 liters of Bacillus anthracis spores in 1991; UNSCOM noted that there was not evidence to support quantities claimed to be destroyed.

The report concludes "the Commission has no confidence that all bulk agents have been destroyed... and that a biological weapons program (BW )capability does not exist in Iraq."

NO confidence that a BW DOES NOT EXIST!!

Saddam Hussein s Weapons Of Mass Destruction Gunning For Saddam FRONTLINE PBS

 

[francoHFW]

never any "mushroom clouds" to worry about is the point.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HM420 10004190

1) Saddam letter you shared DIDN"T say they destroyed.... said they didn't possess!

That is why I posted the pertinent excerpts from the full Piro interview and the Sabri letter. I was responding to the misinformation in your post (416 10002132) that Saddam would not admit that he had no WMDs.

HM416 10002132, NF 10002106, HM 10001227

AGAIN read what Saddam SAID...still wouldn't admit he had no WMDs...

How could Saddam say he 'destroyed' weapons that he said he didn't have?

Do you think David Kay was some kind of Saddam Lover?

January 24, 2004
The New York Times reports [link to source] [link to source]
“David Kay, who led the American effort to find banned weapons in Iraq, said Friday after stepping down from his post that he has concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons at the start of the war last year.
“In an interview with Reuters, Dr. Kay said he now thought that Iraq had illicit weapons at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, but that the subsequent combination of United Nations inspections and Iraq's own decisions ‘got rid of them.’”

Leading To War a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

 

[Pete7469]

4,000+ young American lives, tens of thousands of lost limbs and minds, thousands of destroyed families over one trillion dollars that we didn't have, and an even more destabilized Middle East.

For that?

No thanks.

1.2 million children ALIVE today because they weren't starved by Saddam's refusal to admit he DIDN"T have WMDs!
And now we know he DID!
Or how about these Iraqi's
"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

And to you, this is worth the price we have paid, described in my post?

.

It was worth the year of my life and what I've suffered as a result.

What price have you paid? Do you even earn a wage that gets taxed?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NF 10009840 regarding HM 10004190

There is no language in 1441 that matches what you have conjured out of thin air. Iraq had to satisfy the inspectors sufficiently that they could verify compliance and Iraq did.

HM422 10010505 regarding NF 10009840

I conjured nothing. Because Saddam /Naji Never said they destroyed WMDs.... just said they didn't possess.

You cannot respond to what I have written. I wrote, "there is no language in 1441..." and you have posted a timeline listing 1441 so I assume you know that 1441 was passed in November of 2002. So I'd like to know why you are filling the thread up with links to what UNNSCOM reported by the end of 1998.

What follows is a summary of what IAEA and UNSCOM had found in Iraq, up until 1998.

from your outdated link Healthmyths. Saddam Hussein s Weapons Of Mass Destruction Gunning For Saddam FRONTLINE PBS

Part of 'longstanding disarmament issues' that Dr Blix would have been completing had Bush not decided to invade Iraq instead, was to use newly available technology to be able to measure residues in order to confirm that the CW etc that was destroyed unilaterally by Iraq without UNSCOM supervision during the nineties was indeed destroyed. So it was GW Bush that ruined the potential to confirm that those chemical agents had been destroyed in the nineties.

But there was nothing in 1441 that put Iraq in violation of UNSC 1441 for not being able to document what was unilaterally destroyed a decade before Bush decided to start a war to disarm Iraq instead of disarming Iraq peacefully.

 

[ninja007]

Not exactly a mushroom cloud is it? We knew about Saddam's aging and mostly un-usable stockpile of chemicals, no one in the world could have made the case to invade over that alone. Bushco said he had a functional nuclear program and weaponized biologicals along with the missiles to deliver it to Europe. That's the lie that justified our invasion.

no, he never said that. Many libs said that though.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The DIA said this in September:

September 2002 [reported at a later date] A Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report is issued, stating (declassified by the Department of Defense, June 9, 2003) [link to source]

“A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM actions… There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has — or will — establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”

Leading To War a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

November 7, 2002 President George W. Bush speaks to the press in the Presidential Hall [link to source] “I think most people around the world realize that Saddam Hussein is a threat. And no one likes war, but they also don’t like the idea of Saddam Hussein having a nuclear weapon. Imagine what would happen. And by the way, we don’t know how close he is to a nuclear weapon right now. We know he wants one...”

Bush did fearmonger on nuclear weapons quite a bit.

October 7, 2002
President George W. Bush outlines the Iraqi threat at the Cincinnati Museum Center [link to source]

“Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.
“We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons, and diseases, and gasses, and atomic weapons. “We’ve also discovered, through intelligence, that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disburse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States.
“The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. “Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. “If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. “America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

And according to Dick Armey, he was not in favor of voting to authorize force in October until Cheney called him in and convinced him that the threat of nuclear weapons in Iraq was real and he changed his mind.




NF421 10009840 regarding HM 10004190

Iraq had to satisfy the inspectors sufficiently that they could verify compliance and Iraq did.

HM422 10010505 regarding NF 10009840

Inspectors NEVER found ANY proof WMDs were destroyed. Surely something as important would be documented by observers of the destruction but there never were any documents that clearly stated Iraq destroyed their WMDs.

Of course they didn't. Bush cut off the peaceful process of disarmament verification and long term monitoring in order to start a war to verify that Iraq had nothing.


The peace process deserved a chance. This offer came early on. It was mid-December 2002 when this offer was made.

Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development. Al-Saadi also said during a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq was prepared to answer any questions raised by the United States and Britain. "We are ready to deal with each of those questions if you ask us," he said.

Saddam Extends Invite to CIA Fox News

Why was it preferable to start a war and get Americans killed if the CIA could have gone in and found out first hand what was or was not there?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Pt425 10010716 Ma regarding 9975365, HM 9975319, Ma 9975283

It was worth the year of my life and what I've suffered as a result.

Looking at the situation objectively would it have been wiser to take this offer and be as certain as possible that the accusations against the regime in Iraq was true without a shadow of a doubt before invading that country to bring down its regime. And the invasion was launched without a clue as how those troops being sent were going to 'govern' a Muslim Country that might not think much of US Soldiers coming in.

Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development. Al-Saadi also said during a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq was prepared to answer any questions raised by the United States and Britain. "We are ready to deal with each of those questions if you ask us," he said.
...Saddam Extends Invite to CIA Fox News

And looking back all Americans should be concerned that our government not only rejected a means to avert war so great Americans like you would not have been forced to sacrifice a year of your life in Iraq, but they apparently paid no attention to any dissenting intelligence on Iraq's WMD and went full blown ahead with very dodgy stuff.

September 2002 [reported at a later date] A Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report is issued, stating (declassified by the Department of Defense, June 9, 2003) [link to source]
“A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM actions… There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has — or will — establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”

Don't you think it is incredible that in September 2002 Bush should have read the DIA report above, but without going into Iraq as they were offered, Bush claims to have acquired intelligence that leaves no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors at that time?

 

[Mac1958]

4,000+ young American lives, tens of thousands of lost limbs and minds, thousands of destroyed families over one trillion dollars that we didn't have, and an even more destabilized Middle East.

For that?

No thanks.

1.2 million children ALIVE today because they weren't starved by Saddam's refusal to admit he DIDN"T have WMDs!
And now we know he DID!
Or how about these Iraqi's
"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

And to you, this is worth the price we have paid, described in my post?

.

It was worth the year of my life and what I've suffered as a result.

What price have you paid? Do you even earn a wage that gets taxed?

So all the costs to America have been worth it?

No, not even close. I'm glad I don't feel obligated to defend a tragedy like this.

.

 

[healthmyths]

HM420 10004190

1) Saddam letter you shared DIDN"T say they destroyed.... said they didn't possess!

That is why I posted the pertinent excerpts from the full Piro interview and the Sabri letter. I was responding to the misinformation in your post (416 10002132) that Saddam would not admit that he had no WMDs.

HM416 10002132, NF 10002106, HM 10001227

AGAIN read what Saddam SAID...still wouldn't admit he had no WMDs...

How could Saddam say he 'destroyed' weapons that he said he didn't have?

Do you think David Kay was some kind of Saddam Lover?

January 24, 2004
The New York Times reports [link to source] [link to source]
“David Kay, who led the American effort to find banned weapons in Iraq, said Friday after stepping down from his post that he has concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons at the start of the war last year.
“In an interview with Reuters, Dr. Kay said he now thought that Iraq had illicit weapons at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, but that the subsequent combination of United Nations inspections and Iraq's own decisions ‘got rid of them.’”

Leading To War a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

I quote Kay.." he now "thought that Iraq had illicit weapons at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, but that the subsequent combination of United Nations inspections and Iraq's own decisions ‘got rid of them.’”

Proof they got rid of them not thought they did IS necessary...

 

[healthmyths]

4,000+ young American lives, tens of thousands of lost limbs and minds, thousands of destroyed families over one trillion dollars that we didn't have, and an even more destabilized Middle East.

For that?

No thanks.

1.2 million children ALIVE today because they weren't starved by Saddam's refusal to admit he DIDN"T have WMDs!
And now we know he DID!
Or how about these Iraqi's
"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

And to you, this is worth the price we have paid, described in my post?

.

It was worth the year of my life and what I've suffered as a result.

What price have you paid? Do you even earn a wage that gets taxed?

So all the costs to America have been worth it?

No, not even close. I'm glad I don't feel obligated to defend a tragedy like this.

.

The Liberation was over in May 2003.
Then we had the cheer leaders on the side lines like you who encouraged the terrorists to use children as suicide bombers.
With words like the below terrorists recruited more terrorists. With people who hated America and Bush MORE then they cared for
American soldiers these words have been proven to have prolonged the Liberation and hence more lives.

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

Every one of the above words ENCOURAGED the people you obviously were supporting to fight Bush/American troops...
Proof?
THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The resounding answer WAS YES!!!
according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent following what the researchers call "high-mention weeks," like the two just before the November 2006 election.

If the Harvard study is right, we may be looking at a virtuous circle: Less violence means less media coverage, which in turn means less violence, says the Wall Street Journal.
“Sometimes words are mistakes; they’re just poorly put. But sometimes they’re a manifestation of one’s deep belief in the world and that’s what you really get with President Obama.”
ttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/us/politics/a-president-whose-assurances-have-come-back-to-haunt-him.html?_r=0

"Poorly put"???Tell that to the US soldiers that salute this C-I-C that "poorly put" to the benefit of the terrorists that our military ..
"air raiding villages, killing civilians"!
Words have meanings and in the above cases "DEATHS" caused by the terrorists using careless or on purpose statements by the above!

 

[BlindBoo]

I mean how absolutely dumb are Obamatrons/MSM !
Here they have a president THAT wants by his actions Americans to die!
Proof??? Why would Obama say our "military is air raiding villages killing civilians"???? Who did that help? Certainly not our military!
Definitely our enemies. Is it any wonder the war in Iraq was prolonged when traitors like Obama and his uninformed passed on to the terrorists negative perceptions of our military? Murtha.."cold blooded killer"! Kerry "terrorizing kids and children" ! How can ANY sane normal person ever believe that calling our troops civilian killers, terrorists would be helpful? They wouldn't and that's why idiots like Obama et.al. and supporters did it!
They wanted our troops to be killed so the terrorists would win! Pretty obvious to anyone with common sense!
During WWII there was a very simple common phrase..."Loose Lips can sink ships"!
Well during Liberation of Iraq we had Members of Congress HELPING the terrorists !

8220 Air-raiding villages and killing civilians 8221 - ABC News

In Nashua, NH, Monday, Obama said that the U.S. has “gotta get the job done” in Afghanistan which “requires us to have enough troops that we’re not just air raiding villages and killing civilians which is causing enormous problems there. It means that we have enough civilian support, agricultural specialists, people who are engineers, people who are building schools and so forth to help the Afghani government do a better job of delivering on behalf of its people.”

Recall at the time in 2007 there were several high profile raids that killed hundreds of civilians and the Afghanistan Government was very upset about it. So in this instance then candidate Obama was advocating for an increase, or and escalation of troop levels.

 

[Mac1958]

So when do we get to see the nukes they found?

 

[Pete7469]

Pt425 10010716 Ma regarding 9975365, HM 9975319, Ma 9975283

It was worth the year of my life and what I've suffered as a result.

Looking at the situation objectively would it have been wiser to take this offer and be as certain as possible that the accusations against the regime in Iraq was true without a shadow of a doubt before invading that country to bring down its regime. And the invasion was launched without a clue as how those troops being sent were going to 'govern' a Muslim Country that might not think much of US Soldiers coming in.

Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development. Al-Saadi also said during a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq was prepared to answer any questions raised by the United States and Britain. "We are ready to deal with each of those questions if you ask us," he said.
...Saddam Extends Invite to CIA Fox News

And looking back all Americans should be concerned that our government not only rejected a means to avert war so great Americans like you would not have been forced to sacrifice a year of your life in Iraq, but they apparently paid no attention to any dissenting intelligence on Iraq's WMD and went full blown ahead with very dodgy stuff.

September 2002 [reported at a later date] A Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report is issued, stating (declassified by the Department of Defense, June 9, 2003) [link to source]
“A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM actions… There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has — or will — establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”

Don't you think it is incredible that in September 2002 Bush should have read the DIA report above, but without going into Iraq as they were offered, Bush claims to have acquired intelligence that leaves no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors at that time?

That's all well and good if you're going to secong guess what the president did at the time, but he made a desicion based on what information he had.

"It's a SLAM DUNK CASE!!"... according to George Tenet as I recall.

I'm proud of what we did. We freed millions of people from a despotic psycopath and his sadist sons. The fact remains that the UN inspectors failed to uncover and ensure the destruction of the munitions. That's the bottom line.

 

[healthmyths]

I mean how absolutely dumb are Obamatrons/MSM !
Here they have a president THAT wants by his actions Americans to die!
Proof??? Why would Obama say our "military is air raiding villages killing civilians"???? Who did that help? Certainly not our military!
Definitely our enemies. Is it any wonder the war in Iraq was prolonged when traitors like Obama and his uninformed passed on to the terrorists negative perceptions of our military? Murtha.."cold blooded killer"! Kerry "terrorizing kids and children" ! How can ANY sane normal person ever believe that calling our troops civilian killers, terrorists would be helpful? They wouldn't and that's why idiots like Obama et.al. and supporters did it!
They wanted our troops to be killed so the terrorists would win! Pretty obvious to anyone with common sense!
During WWII there was a very simple common phrase..."Loose Lips can sink ships"!
Well during Liberation of Iraq we had Members of Congress HELPING the terrorists !

8220 Air-raiding villages and killing civilians 8221 - ABC News

In Nashua, NH, Monday, Obama said that the U.S. has “gotta get the job done” in Afghanistan which “requires us to have enough troops that we’re not just air raiding villages and killing civilians which is causing enormous problems there. It means that we have enough civilian support, agricultural specialists, people who are engineers, people who are building schools and so forth to help the Afghani government do a better job of delivering on behalf of its people.”

Recall at the time in 2007 there were several high profile raids that killed hundreds of civilians and the Afghanistan Government was very upset about it. So in this instance then candidate Obama was advocating for an increase, or and escalation of troop levels.

MAKES no difference! Words have meaning....the above WERE EXCEPTIONS not planned... but the enemy doesn't care!
They like you take these words as meaning all the time... everyone!!!
So if Obama is stupid enough NOT to understand that, then that shows HE was never presidential material and now we've had further examples of his big mouth blunders..." cambridge police stupid"... right! "Corpse-men"... right!

These are examples of Obama be a dumb f...k more interested in POLITICAL office running then running the office!

Words have meanings.
Regardless maybe of his intentions..(I don't think so..he hates the military!!!) but it certainly shows his
stupidity as the others I quoted.
YOU just don't say things to encourage the further killings of US military... unless you are stupid or running for office!

 

[paulitician]

Time to withdraw from the entire Middle East. Our constant meddling has made things so much worse over there. Iraq was a stable and somewhat prosperous Nation before we invaded. And most of the nations in the region had the radical Islamists under control. We've created so much chaos over there. It's time to come home. We don't belong there. Let's put the Iraq issue to bed once and for all.

 

[edthecynic]

I thought it was "weapons of mass destruction." That includes chemical weapons. I could be wrong, but I don't recall them specifying the exact type of weapon, just WMDs.

weap·on of mass de·struc·tion
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction

1. a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

And since the Ws were not capable of MD they were not WMDs by your own definition. The OP's own link shows pictures of the "wounded" unmarked and quite alive!

Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling, left, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, far right, and another member of an ordnance disposal team being treated for exposure to a chemical agent in August 2008.
via Andrew T. Goldman

 

[ChrisL]

I thought it was "weapons of mass destruction." That includes chemical weapons. I could be wrong, but I don't recall them specifying the exact type of weapon, just WMDs.

weap·on of mass de·struc·tion
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction

1. a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

And since the Ws were not capable of MD they were not WMDs by your own definition. The OP's own link shows pictures of the "wounded" unmarked and quite alive!

Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling, left, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, far right, and another member of an ordnance disposal team being treated for exposure to a chemical agent in August 2008.
via Andrew T. Goldman

What's your point? That really doesn't mean anything. Exposure can mean just coming into contact with a suspicious item. Pointless post.

 

[BlindBoo]

I mean how absolutely dumb are Obamatrons/MSM !
Here they have a president THAT wants by his actions Americans to die!
Proof??? Why would Obama say our "military is air raiding villages killing civilians"???? Who did that help? Certainly not our military!
Definitely our enemies. Is it any wonder the war in Iraq was prolonged when traitors like Obama and his uninformed passed on to the terrorists negative perceptions of our military? Murtha.."cold blooded killer"! Kerry "terrorizing kids and children" ! How can ANY sane normal person ever believe that calling our troops civilian killers, terrorists would be helpful? They wouldn't and that's why idiots like Obama et.al. and supporters did it!
They wanted our troops to be killed so the terrorists would win! Pretty obvious to anyone with common sense!
During WWII there was a very simple common phrase..."Loose Lips can sink ships"!
Well during Liberation of Iraq we had Members of Congress HELPING the terrorists !

8220 Air-raiding villages and killing civilians 8221 - ABC News

In Nashua, NH, Monday, Obama said that the U.S. has “gotta get the job done” in Afghanistan which “requires us to have enough troops that we’re not just air raiding villages and killing civilians which is causing enormous problems there. It means that we have enough civilian support, agricultural specialists, people who are engineers, people who are building schools and so forth to help the Afghani government do a better job of delivering on behalf of its people.”

Recall at the time in 2007 there were several high profile raids that killed hundreds of civilians and the Afghanistan Government was very upset about it. So in this instance then candidate Obama was advocating for an increase, or and escalation of troop levels.

MAKES no difference! Words have meaning....the above WERE EXCEPTIONS not planned... but the enemy doesn't care!
They like you take these words as meaning all the time... everyone!!!
So if Obama is stupid enough NOT to understand that, then that shows HE was never presidential material and now we've had further examples of his big mouth blunders..." cambridge police stupid"... right! "Corpse-men"... right!

These are examples of Obama be a dumb f...k more interested in POLITICAL office running then running the office!

Words have meanings.
Regardless maybe of his intentions..(I don't think so..he hates the military!!!) but it certainly shows his
stupidity as the others I quoted.
YOU just don't say things to encourage the further killings of US military... unless you are stupid or running for office!

Why would Obama say our "military is air raiding villages killing civilians"????

As I proved for you again for the umptenth time, President Obama didn't say that. When you lie about what was said, that encourages, and in the terrorist minds, justifies further attacks on US soldiers and civilians.