Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
nobody but the grandkids care, and they've heard so much RW BS for so long they don't care. They'll read history books, not RW conspiracy threads on some retard message board, and wonder why RW's were soooooooooooo damn stupid.
I can't help but notice you didn't answer my question. I can only take that to mean you can't think of a single instance in the entire history of mankind when someone gave away their weapons to a nation which once fought against them, just prior to being invaded by another nation.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.
It was a Democrat Bill Clinton that started the ball rolling in the Liberation of Iraq by signing the 1998 Liberation of Iraq, or the Congress passes Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq "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.Where is the evidence of this news?
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.
"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling . "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
Plus account for these 32 democrats insistence Saddam be removed?
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
oppressive regime .... 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 ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
“So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interest of our nation. A vote for it is
not a vote to rush to war. It is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president.”
Hillary Clinton on October 2, 2002:
147 Democrats voted against the Iraq War resolution.
7 Republicans voted against it.
You're mentally retarded if you think those 2 numbers represent equal blame.
So all the Dems that claimed WMD's were all lairs also right? no WMD must all have been lies?If those had been WMD's we would have had hundreds of Iraqis coming forward since then, Iraqis who had either worked on WMD's in some capacity, or had moved them, or both.
Where are those hundreds of people?
Shot dead by Saddam's RG according to anecdotal accounts....those who loaded the trucks in question or were part of units who buried the remaining WMDs not sent out, were never seen again....their deployment records ended with no evidence of separation or discharge.
lol. You're insane. Where are all the personnel who would have been working on WMD's?
You see? This is where they get stumped. They claim that Saddam had all sorts of WMD's, in a capacity and scope to represent an imminent threat to the US or our allies, and yet,
they can't produce the personnel that would have been needed to develop, build, operate, maintain, and otherwise support such WMD capabilities.
No people, no WMD's. It's pretty simple.
I can't help but notice you didn't answer my question. I can only take that to mean you can't think of a single instance in the entire history of mankind when someone gave away their weapons to a nation which once fought against them, just prior to being invaded by another nation.
So on top of your ludicrous claim that Hussein did just that, it's something beyond stupid and never ever done before.
And again, your comparison is false ... Hitler did not give his weapons away. No less, to a country which had fought against him. So that's a false comparison. Bush threatened to prosecute anyone caught using WMD, so there was o threat we would use them. So that's false too.
Basically, just about everything you said exists only in your mind, with the exception of Hitler not using mustard gas.
From day one? Hell, he was talking about invading Iraq while he was campaigning for president.^ thatSo 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.
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
nobody but the grandkids care, and they've heard so much RW BS for so long they don't care. They'll read history books, not RW conspiracy threads on some retard message board, and wonder why RW's were soooooooooooo damn stupid.
Probably true since the Rat enablers write the text books....we supposedly "lost" in Vietnam according to them too.....and Plame will be portrayed as a 007 like heroine when in reality she was nothing more than a prostitute....he who writes the history wins.....which is why we have to take the public schools back from you rodents or close them.
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.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.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.Where is the evidence of this news?
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.
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.
Glad you're a master of "simple" reasoning. Clearly, anything beyond that is above your pay grade. Regardless, with the exception of pointing out Hitler didn't resort to using mustard gas, everything else you said was made up. And regardless of your military experience, stupid is stupid. And what you claim Hussein did is sooo fucking stupid, it's never been done before. Even Hitler, who you cited for comparison purposes wasn't stupid enough to do that....I can't help but notice you didn't answer my question. I can only take that to mean you can't think of a single instance in the entire history of mankind when someone gave away their weapons to a nation which once fought against them, just prior to being invaded by another nation.
So on top of your ludicrous claim that Hussein did just that, it's something beyond stupid and never ever done before.
And again, your comparison is false ... Hitler did not give his weapons away. No less, to a country which had fought against him. So that's a false comparison. Bush threatened to prosecute anyone caught using WMD, so there was o threat we would use them. So that's false too.
Basically, just about everything you said exists only in your mind, with the exception of Hitler not using mustard gas.
That you can't do simple reasoning isn't my concern....only that you have a vote that negates my vote. Once again....Saddam didn't dare use his WMDs against the 3rd ID so what was the point of keeping them, having them found, and justifying the invasion? Hello? anybody home?
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.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.Where is the evidence of this news?
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.
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
When American visit Vietnam do they go to Saigon or Ho Chi Min City?
Saigon....ever been there?
When tourists visit America do they go to Los Angeles or Pleiku west?
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.
You're mentally retarded for not mentioning the vote in the Senate and being too ignorant to mention that it only takes a majority of the 535 Congressmen and women to pass a bill or a resolution. Bush and the Democrat and Republican members of Congress that approved of invading Iraq had access to and briefings from the intelligence community, and they all agreed.
When the authorization for Iraq was passed in Oct., 2002, the Senate Majority leader voted for it as well as 28 other Democrats. Tom Dasche (D) presided over the Democrat majority in the Senate.
Glad you're a master of "simple" reasoning. Clearly, anything beyond that is above your pay grade. Regardless, with the exception of pointing out Hitler didn't resort to using mustard gas, everything else you said was made up. And regardless of your military experience, stupid is stupid. And what you claim Hussein did is sooo fucking stupid, it's never been done before. Even Hitler, who you cited for comparison purposes wasn't stupid enough to do that....
But apparently, you are.
Plus, you have to leap the hurdle that the U.N. was scouring Iraq for WMD and they didn't find them (the ones you claim were smuggled out) either.
OMG it never ends.
I think the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus were driving the trucks...right?
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.
Like I needed any help with sniveling turds like you, boy? Both threads are very painful as some of the less stoned ones amongst you fled rather than see how badly they'd been had by the Gore/Kerry cabal. Only those of you who pride yourselves on being "enlightened" stuck around to get tortured further....you're too far gone to be embarrassed anymore.
You're probably embarrassed enough for all of the right wing nutjobs who still claim there were WMDs. Even GWB admitted there were none...any sane person would have stopped claiming otherwise after he gave up the ghost. But please keep on entertaining us with your craziness spiked with just enough obscenity to remind us that you're actually serious; which only serves to heighten the sensation of seeing you humiliate yourself further. blah blah blah
.
Glad you're a master of "simple" reasoning. Clearly, anything beyond that is above your pay grade. Regardless, with the exception of pointing out Hitler didn't resort to using mustard gas, everything else you said was made up. And regardless of your military experience, stupid is stupid. And what you claim Hussein did is sooo fucking stupid, it's never been done before. Even Hitler, who you cited for comparison purposes wasn't stupid enough to do that....
But apparently, you are.
Plus, you have to leap the hurdle that the U.N. was scouring Iraq for WMD and they didn't find them (the ones you claim were smuggled out) either.
France was tipping off Saddam where the UN inspectors were going the next day...why? Because France was continuing to defy the embargo and shipping weapons and materiel in to him. Saddam also sent his fighter jets to IRAN to save them you might recall......the same IRAN he'd been fighting for ten years. You expect me to profile a man who told his own generals he had a nuclear weapons program going when he didn't? What do you expect from our intel guys when he was deceiving the ones we'd turned...why would a man want his adversaries to know what he didn't have is your question....take your time.
