Saddam's WMDs Went To Syria, Then Lebanon....

[g5000]

Hussein's WMDs are so potent, the laws of physics do not apply to them. There is no expiration date on the packages.

All previous WMDs became useless for warfare after three to five years, but not Hussein's. We may be plagued with tracking those immortal WMDs well into the fourth millennium.

The last thing we need is other states figuring out how to make more WMDs. It's a good thing the recipe died with Hussein.

 

[BlindBoo]

So the incompetent Bush Administration allowed Iraq to ship all those newly produced WMD and the factories that manufactured them from Iraq while under the No Fly Zone to Syria huh?

Good Job at denigrating President Bushes effectiveness.

Spy satellites can't see inside trucks, moron...what the no-fly zone has to do with anything only you seem to know.

They told the country they knew where the new plants were. If they watched the trucks load up at those plants, why weren't the trucks bombed with the jets that were patrolling 2/3rds of the country. We all know why. Because there was no new plants producing and stockpiling any new WMD. It was all a lie. Like this claim.......

 

[BullKurtz]

Bull-Shit USMC ... ... the mid east got WMD's, had WMD's, so what ? they never used them against the US ...

never say die, no matter how dead it is. The only thing that'll shut up RW BS is death itself ... theirs.

Cero! Long time no see....just get out of jail for vagrancy again?

 

[healthmyths]

Freedom Agenda - Quotes and Facts on Iraq
Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that."

Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
In a Los Angeles Times editorial: "A 'Big Cat' With Nothing to Lose"
February 6, 2003; Page B17

"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."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998

You can list 199 pages of statements, speeches, video's. None of the people making them had the responsibility and authority to take military action. Only one man had that power. Ever since that one man who had the power made his decision he and his supporters along with his advisers and consultants have been running from taking responsibility for their actions. Instead they play a cowardly game of blaming others for their misdeeds, failures and mistakes.

All the statements Health's post are all snpipets taken out of context.

How in the F!!!K do IDIOTS like you know the "context"? These are their WORDS not mine! These words are what drive the policies that they promoted!
snpipets ????? See why I KNOW you are an idiot by typing these12 words it shows you can't even pay attention to the little red dotted line showing your error!

 

[kaz]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

The big lie of the Iraq war was the Democrats saying they were lied to.

That's why even when you are right, you are wrong. The debate should have been on our engaging in non-defensive wars, we should not. By picking the right side then turning it into a pissing match with the Republicans, you destroyed the chance to rethink and change bad policy.

The debate about going to war in Iraq was not about whether to selectively engage in a non-defensive war. The whole point of the anger of being lied to is that the war was in fact presented as a defensive war. The population was lied to to convince them that the nation was in grave danger of further 9/11 type attacks from al Qaeda who was being supported and protected by Saddam and Iraq. At the very least, misinformation and cherry picked data was used to convince the American people that Saddam most definitely, without any doubt had WMD's along with an operational working relationship with the 9/11 attackers. Neither turned out to be true.

Right, that's the big lie, the crap you said. Democrats were not lied to, you were hand in hand with W thought the whole thing. Then you screwed your country for cheap political points. You were wrong and you were wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[BullKurtz]

Hussein's WMDs are so potent, the laws of physics do not apply to them. There is no expiration date on the packages.

All previous WMDs became useless for warfare after three to five years, but not Hussein's. It's a good thing the recipe died with him. We may be plagued with tracking those immortal WMDs well into the fourth millennium.

Wrong again barf breath.....the expiration date on chemical weapons isn't what this thread is about....the munitions trucked in Syria and then Lebanon were at full potency at the time....all this thread is proving is they were very real and an imminent danger at the time.....something you leftist turds continue to deny in the face of the truth....it must suck to be a sucker.

 

[kaz]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

The big lie of the Iraq war was the Democrats saying they were lied to.

That's why even when you are right, you are wrong. The debate should have been on our engaging in non-defensive wars, we should not. By picking the right side then turning it into a pissing match with the Republicans, you destroyed the chance to rethink and change bad policy.

No, the big lie is saying that the Democrats were just as guilty for getting us into Iraq as the GOP.

yep, that neocon plant was in the pentagon feeding *cough* "raw" intel to Dubya's/Cheney's war room.

You and the Republicans were arm in arm, repeating a lie doesn't make it the truth.

 

[Siete]

Bull-Shit USMC ... ... the mid east got WMD's, had WMD's, so what ? they never used them against the US ...

never say die, no matter how dead it is. The only thing that'll shut up RW BS is death itself ... theirs.

Cero! Long time no see....just get out of jail for vagrancy again?

all you're doing is stirring shit, and shit it is... don't forget to lick the spoon.

this is 2015, deal with it.

 

[Theowl32]

Liberal are fucking liars, hypocrites and nothing but pawns for democrats.

Fuck you liberals.

Fuck you.

 

[Faun]

Riiight .... because that's what countries do just before they're invaded ... they give away their weapons to enemy nations.

What better ammunition is there than having half the invader's population believe they are attacking a "peaceful nation that never attacked us"? Saddam was told in no uncertain terms what would happen if he used WMDs against us....Hitler never used his mustard gas in WW2 because he knew we had more of it than he did and had been gassed himself in France. You don't know anything about history or military tactics yet you mouth off like you do...why is that?

This is one of my favorite retarded reasons...

a) Hitler did not give away his chemical weapons.

b) He certainly didn't give them to a country which attacked him previously, as you assert Hussein did.

c) Hussein had no compunction using WMD in the past.

d) There were no allusions that Iraq was a peaceful nation.

Basically,nothing you assert makes any sense. But since you prop yourself up as knowledgeable of military history, feel free to inform me of any other time in the history of mankind when an country gave away it's most powerful weapons to an enemy just prior to being invaded............

 

[BullKurtz]

They told the country they knew where the new plants were. If they watched the trucks load up at those plants, why weren't the trucks bombed with the jets that were patrolling 2/3rds of the country. We all know why. Because there was no new plants producing and stockpiling any new WMD. It was all a lie. Like this claim.......

As the OP clearly states, the CIA had their plate full of different matters...they didn't see the convoys for what they were...maybe they thought Saddam was sending out the Iraq treasury and national treasures....After the fact, the WMDs were in Lebanon...there is no government there to appeal to and to have invaded yet another ME country would have sent you leftist turds into ORBIT.

 

[Siete]

enter a trash mouth RW's showcasing his IQ.

 

[Camp]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

The big lie of the Iraq war was the Democrats saying they were lied to.

That's why even when you are right, you are wrong. The debate should have been on our engaging in non-defensive wars, we should not. By picking the right side then turning it into a pissing match with the Republicans, you destroyed the chance to rethink and change bad policy.

The debate about going to war in Iraq was not about whether to selectively engage in a non-defensive war. The whole point of the anger of being lied to is that the war was in fact presented as a defensive war. The population was lied to to convince them that the nation was in grave danger of further 9/11 type attacks from al Qaeda who was being supported and protected by Saddam and Iraq. At the very least, misinformation and cherry picked data was used to convince the American people that Saddam most definitely, without any doubt had WMD's along with an operational working relationship with the 9/11 attackers. Neither turned out to be true.

Right, that's the big lie, the crap you said. Democrats were not lied to, you were hand in hand with W thought the whole thing. Then you screwed your country for cheap political points. You were wrong and you were wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

Everyone was lied to and everyone knows it. Claims that Bush and his administration did not lie are mocked, laughed at, ignored or viewed as delusional fantasy promoted by brainwashed idiots. That is just the way it is. Reality sucks for Bush fans.

 

[BullKurtz]

a) Hitler did not give away his chemical weapons.

b) He certainly didn't give them to a country which attacked him previously, as you assert Hussein did.

c) Hussein had no compunction using WMD in the past.

d) There were no allusions that Iraq was a peaceful nation.

Basically,nothing you assert makes any sense. But since you prop yourself up as knowledgeable of military history, feel free to inform me of any other time in the history of mankind when an country gave away it's most powerful weapons to an enemy just prior to being invaded............

You really are this stupid ain't ya? whew. Uh, yeah Saddam gassed the Kurds alright...they had nothing to retaliate with did they? See the difference? probably not...there is no reason to believe Saddam had a death wish....if he'd gassed 3rd ID troops on their way to Baghdad we would have unleashed a FURY few there would have survived.....and I'm not "propping myself up as knowledgeable about military history"....I AM former military and a combat non-com who worked as a forward observer in a very hot war....you have no credentials other than being a stoned cretin who votes Rat because you get a few breadcrumbs from it.

 

[BlindBoo]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

The big lie of the Iraq war was the Democrats saying they were lied to.

That's why even when you are right, you are wrong. The debate should have been on our engaging in non-defensive wars, we should not. By picking the right side then turning it into a pissing match with the Republicans, you destroyed the chance to rethink and change bad policy.

The debate about going to war in Iraq was not about whether to selectively engage in a non-defensive war. The whole point of the anger of being lied to is that the war was in fact presented as a defensive war. The population was lied to to convince them that the nation was in grave danger of further 9/11 type attacks from al Qaeda who was being supported and protected by Saddam and Iraq. At the very least, misinformation and cherry picked data was used to convince the American people that Saddam most definitely, without any doubt had WMD's along with an operational working relationship with the 9/11 attackers. Neither turned out to be true.

Right, that's the big lie, the crap you said. Democrats were not lied to, you were hand in hand with W thought the whole thing. Then you screwed your country for cheap political points. You were wrong and you were wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.


Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Salon.com

 

[BullKurtz]

Everyone was lied to and everyone knows it. Claims that Bush and his administration did not lie are mocked, laughed at, ignored or viewed as delusional fantasy promoted by brainwashed idiots. That is just the way it is. Reality sucks for Bush fans.

Says the shit bag who got his ass creamed in the Plame thread....must suck to reuse needles to fix up eh, boy?

 

[Dot Com]

So the incompetent Bush Administration allowed Iraq to ship all those newly produced WMD and the factories that manufactured them from Iraq while under the No Fly Zone to Syria huh?

Good Job at denigrating President Bushes effectiveness.

^ that

shows the atrocious lack of planning on the Repub Admin's part due to their obsession w/ invading vietraq from Day 1 of his Admin

CNN.com - O Neill Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9 11 - Jan. 14 2004

 

[BlindBoo]

They told the country they knew where the new plants were. If they watched the trucks load up at those plants, why weren't the trucks bombed with the jets that were patrolling 2/3rds of the country. We all know why. Because there was no new plants producing and stockpiling any new WMD. It was all a lie. Like this claim.......

As the OP clearly states, the CIA had their plate full of different matters...they didn't see the convoys for what they were...maybe they thought Saddam was sending out the Iraq treasury and national treasures....After the fact, the WMDs were in Lebanon...there is no government there to appeal to and to have invaded yet another ME country would have sent you leftist turds into ORBIT.

Trucking entire manufacturing plants and they couldn't see it. Either they are the most incompetent agency ever or the OP is a lie. I'm going with the latter. Of course they could still be in the Indian Ocean........\

Cargo ships may contain Iraqi weapons World news The Guardian

US and British intelligence are tracking three cargo ships suspected of carrying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, it was reported today.
The vessels are alleged to have been chartered through an Egyptian shipping firm and collected loads smuggled through either Syria or Jordan to avoid Western naval patrols off the Iraqi coast.

 

[Camp]

Everyone was lied to and everyone knows it. Claims that Bush and his administration did not lie are mocked, laughed at, ignored or viewed as delusional fantasy promoted by brainwashed idiots. That is just the way it is. Reality sucks for Bush fans.

Says the shit bag who got his ass creamed in the Plame thread....must suck to reuse needles to fix up eh, boy?

Your Plame thread was mocked as much as this one. If you don't know the level of mockery and disrespect you are getting in your threads you need to go back and count the number of posters making fun of you compared to the pitiful few who try to support your delusions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

You know YOU MAY BE right! Maybe there weren't 576,000 children starved! YOU may be right!
BUT idiots like you keep forgetting... YOU idiots have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight! Idiot!
Do you KNOW how 90% of Americans felt after the 9/11 attack and the anthrax attacks ? You obviously were some where else on the planet but me and 90% of Americans were very very frightened even to open an envelope! Idiot!
So Yes maybe with the luxury of 10 years hindsight there May not have been 576,000 starved children!
BUT YOU idiots that ignored the fact Saddam was a dictator that VIOLATED and Broke the 1991 CEASE FIRE which as it literally means the 1991 Desert Storm had CEASED FIRE meant the LIBERATION of Iraq as Bill Clinton and other Democrats voted for in 1998 had to take place!

YES with the luxury of hindsight... there may not have been 576,000 starving children! Big woo! How many more would have starved if the sanctions hadn't been halted because SAddam was dead?

Invading Iraq didn't bring any starved children back to life, and, more importantly, hunger in a foreign country in and of itself is not a vital interest of the US and therefore not a justifiable cause for sending American soldiers to fight and die by the thousands.

Not according these two and several dozen other leading Democrats.


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"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 ... 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." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

Remember what happened to those two Democrats when they tried to become president?

Do you think it was their original position on Iraq or their hypocritical reversal of their position that caused them to lose? And, do you really think either of them are through running for President?

Hillary Clinton never reversed her position, that's why Obama beat her. She has done so recently.