So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[Boss]

Retarded? I don't know. A case could certainly be made that he was bluffing about possessing WMD to scare off his enemies like Iran and Israel.

Again, pure conjecture and really stupid conjecture at that.

Israel? You think that the US would have backed Israel invading Iraq and sticking up their flag? That wasn't going to happen. Nor was the US ever going to let the fundamental wackos in Tehran assume control of Iraq and it's oil fields.... WAS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN THIS UNIVERSE OF REALITY! ---EVER!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11694647

We stopped looking less than a month after Saddam's regime fell.

Once again you state nothing but your considerable and constant foolishness. When will you quit? According to the Dumb War Starter, it was May 1, 2003 that Saddam's regime fell..

1 May 2003: Just 43 days after announcing the start of the war in Iraq, President George W. Bush on Thursday told the nation that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." He said the toppling of Saddam Hussein's government was "one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11th, 2001, and still goes on." He spoke from the deck of the aircraft carrrier USS Abraham Lincoln.

Timeline Iraq War


The Duelfor Report came out on October 7, 2004.. That is seventeen months of looking that you just claimed did not happen. Why the misstatement as part of your argument?

War's Rationales Are Undermined One More Time Revelations May Hurt Bush's Image
By Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, October 7, 2004; Page A35
One by one, official reports by government investigators, statements by former administration officials and internal CIA analyses have combined to undermine many of the central rationales of the administration's case for war with Iraq -- and its handling of the post-invasion occupation.

The release of yesterday's definitive account on Iraq's weapons -- and its conclusion that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction years before the U.S.-led invasion -- is only the latest in a series of damaging blows to the White House's strategy of portraying the war in Iraq as being on the cusp of success

War s Rationales Are Undermined One More Time washingtonpost.com

You are one sloppy writer Boss.

 

[Faun]

He also thinks we will one day find a large cache of WMD in Iraq even though we're no longer looking. Guess that means he believes that Syria is going to sneak the WMD back into Iraq?

Wait... aren't you the guy who claimed we've been looking for 9 years? Are we back to not looking again?

Uhm.. Chem/bio weapons have an effective 28 month shelf-life before their ingredients begin to deplete and they lose potency. No WMD made during Saddam's life would be worth the sand it is probably buried under now. That is not why Saddam hid them. He was concealing his operations where he HAD been violating terms of the 1991 Gulf War. We don't know to what extent because we never uncovered it. One day, someone WILL uncover loads of deteriorated and useless WMDs which were buried by Saddam. The raw materials, the munitions components, the laboratory equipment, etc. Pretty much all went to Syria in the weeks before our invasion. Our CIA believed this at the time but couldn't prove it... now they have confirmed the presence of some of this stuff in Syria and in the possession of none other than ISIS.

You're making so much shit up, you can't keep your story straight. I hope you know, when you say shit like, "the raw materials, the munitions components, the laboratory equipment, etc. Pretty much all went to Syria in the weeks before our invasion.," anyone with an IQ containing more than 1 digit knows you're making that up from whole cloth.

As far as old useless chemical munitions, that was found. During the period after Hussein's military fell -- you know, the period you moronically claimed we had stopped looking.

At any rate, despite your unlimited ignorance, we know there were no active programs...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.​

 

[Faun]

Retarded? I don't know. A case could certainly be made that he was bluffing about possessing WMD to scare off his enemies like Iran and Israel.

Again, pure conjecture and really stupid conjecture at that.

Israel? You think that the US would have backed Israel invading Iraq and sticking up their flag? That wasn't going to happen. Nor was the US ever going to let the fundamental wackos in Tehran assume control of Iraq and it's oil fields.... WAS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN THIS UNIVERSE OF REALITY! ---EVER!

Conjecture echoed in the Duelfer Report...

WMD Possession—Real or Imagined—Acts as aDeterrent ... [more]

 

[frigidweirdo]

Bush decided to invade Iraq.

The decision was taken without taking the consequences of this action into account. The US thinks it can go in, beat someone up, and everything will be fine and happy.

The US went into Iraq thinking the people would celebrate the US as saviours. They didn't. Anyone with half a brain would have seen that this wouldn't have happened. But Bush doesn't have half a brain.

Then something even worse happened. Paul Bremer was supposed to be in charge of the military side to Iraq. Some other guy, a Muslim and a guy from the region, was supposed to be the Muslim side of things. This was all agreed upon, all Bush's advisors knew this was going to happen.

Bremer went to Bush and said he should be in sole charge. Bush agreed and gave Bremer control of Iraq. There was no discussion, no debate, etc with Bush's advisors, ie, intelligent people who had more of a clue.

So Bremer was in charge.

First thing Bremer did (more or less) was to disband the Iraqi Army and Police. Anyone connected with the Saddam regime was to not be allowed to be a part of the new regime.
So, all these men were made unemployed. They became fighters against the US, against an Iraqi Army and Police which didn't have a clue as no one had experience. They relied on the US and it's not so strong force to oppose the new found insurgents, made up of people Bremer had fired, instead of paying them to stay on his side. This cost the US so much more money that it would have cost them to keep them in the Iraqi Army and Police.


That's how Bush helped to cause ISIS from the US side. Now let's look at ISIS.

ISIS started out in 1999 as Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād, founded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Al Zarqawi was a poor Palenstinian-Jordanian. He was a violent criminal, the sort you see in most countries and the sort you try and avoid. The sort that would have ended his life in obscurity if he hadn't been given plenty of chances to make a name for himself.

He went to Afghanistan in the late 1980s to fight the Soviets. But they were leaving when he arrived. But he met a certain Osama bin Laden there.

He started what would become ISIS in 1999 because he was released from Jordanian prison. He was still a thug and all of that, nothing much more.

In 2001 the US invaded Afghanistan, al Zarqawi then went to fight the US. But he got injured and left, though probably with a taste for fighting.
In 2003 the US invaded Iraq and this is where he grew into what he'd become.

ISIS was born out of the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, which Bush initiated, because he wanted war.

ISIS learned its trade in these wars. It's hardly surprising they're still going. The destabilised region was a perfect breeding ground for such militant groups.

It all happened because of Bush's invasion of Iraq and the disastrous post war period f**k up by Bush's man Bremer.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

oss 11668840

I think he had all kinds of raw materials, empty shells, equipment and hardware to produce any WMD he wanted, and I think that all got carted off to Syria in the weeks before the invasion. Our CIA has actually uncovered some of it in Syria.

So first of all you have been arguing that there was an imminent threat from Iraq. Raw materials, empty shells, equipment and hardware that could be used for production do not indicate any kind of imminent threat. So which is it? Which fabricated argument are you going to stick with, since they are both 'manufactured' arguments in the first place?

Bush told you on March 17th 2003 that on that very exact date and point in time that he had intelligence 'that left no doubt' that Iraq was concealing 'the most lethal weapons ever devised' from those UN Res 1441 inspectors. So if our intelligence was able to convince Bush43 that those 'most lethal weapons ever devised' were inside Iraq somewhere, do not our intelligence gatherers need some kind of location, quantity, eyewitness verification of the 'most lethal weapons ever devised' being hidden from the inspectors. Bush said nothing about intelligence that 'left no doubt' that those 'identified MLWED' were moved to Syria in the weeks prior to the invasion.

So why didn't Bush let the CIA go into Iraq when Iraq offered. You are continuing to run from that harsh reality as one of those who prefer to believe in the WMD Easter Bush Bunny who maybe carried Iraq's entire stockpile of 'not battlefield ready' WMD and equipment over into Syria. How many Easter baskets would that have required, Boss?

 

[Boss]

oss 11668840

I think he had all kinds of raw materials, empty shells, equipment and hardware to produce any WMD he wanted, and I think that all got carted off to Syria in the weeks before the invasion. Our CIA has actually uncovered some of it in Syria.

So first of all you have been arguing that there was an imminent threat from Iraq. Raw materials, empty shells, equipment and hardware that could be used for production do not indicate any kind of imminent threat. So which is it? Which fabricated argument are you going to stick with, since they are both 'manufactured' arguments in the first place?

Bush told you on March 17th 2003 that on that very exact date and point in time that he had intelligence 'that left no doubt' that Iraq was concealing 'the most lethal weapons ever devised' from those UN Res 1441 inspectors. So if our intelligence was able to convince Bush43 that those 'most lethal weapons ever devised' were inside Iraq somewhere, do not our intelligence gatherers need some kind of location, quantity, eyewitness verification of the 'most lethal weapons ever devised' being hidden from the inspectors. Bush said nothing about intelligence that 'left no doubt' that those 'identified MLWED' were moved to Syria in the weeks prior to the invasion.

So why didn't Bush let the CIA go into Iraq when Iraq offered. You are continuing to run from that harsh reality as one of those who prefer to believe in the WMD Easter Bush Bunny who maybe carried Iraq's entire stockpile of 'not battlefield ready' WMD and equipment over into Syria. How many Easter baskets would that have required, Boss?

Well I am not addressing the bogus offer to let the CIA rummage around Iraq because anyone with a brain knows it wasn't a serious offer and it was only a ploy to buy more time. AND, even IF it were a serious offer (which it certainly wasn't) the US was under no obligation to accept it.

Tell you what do, next time you get arrested... as you're sitting there in handcuffs in the back of the police car... offer to show the police evidence to prove your innocence if they will release you from the cuffs and let you out of the car... see what they say... I am betting they refuse your offer and it doesn't have a thing to do with them not being willing to give you due process.

UN1441 made clear what Saddam needed to do and he didn't do it. End of!

As for "imminent threat" ...I don't think I ever said that. I argued that Bush claimed they were and if that was true he had the authority to take him out without the UN or Congress. The materials and capability to produce weapons grade chem/bio agents and the components to complete WMDs in large quantities, does pose an imminent threat, in my opinion. According to Blix, we were uncertain of the status on any of these programs. So Bush should have taken him out without all the "making the case" crap... all that did was give morons like you more shit to throw at him.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11697679

Well I am not addressing the bogus offer to let the CIA rummage around Iraq because anyone with a brain knows it wasn't a serious offer and it was only a ploy to buy more time. AND, even IF it were a serious offer (which it certainly wasn't) the US was under no obligation to accept it

The offer is a fact reported by Fox News as well as b many others
News organizations. You declaration that the offer was bogus is not a fact nor is it a valid opinion. You will not address it because the fact that the offer was made and not tested by the Bush Administration drastically destroys your nitwit argument that the 1441 inspections were a failure.

Bush did not have to accept it test the offer but there is no logical rational for Bush to decline the offer because it was an opportunity to assist the UN plus gain confidence that Iraq was either disarmed or not. There would have been zero threat from Iraq with CIA and US military in Iraq working openly with the UNSC and Iraq to resolve the WMD questions without killing anybody.

Your rational against this offer is that you prefer killing people. That's why you run from another critical fact from the history if the Invasion of Iraq that directly led to the creation of ISIS as an added threat to the region and the well being and safety of every person living there and visiting there.

Its why you run from facts. They disrupt your myth making and repeating of all the great Bush-fellows myths regarding Iraq.

Keep running. I have it on file.

 

[Boss]

Never said the offer didn't happen, pinhead.

Yep... I very much prefer killing terrorists rather than leaving them alive to form groups like ISIS. I think that killing them is much more effective than diplomacy and greatly deters them from being able to fly planes into buildings, decapitate innocent civilians, string up corpses of dead Marines or drag bodies of Ambassadors through the streets. Hard to do that when you're pushing up daisies.

 

[Faun]

Never said the offer didn't happen, pinhead.

Yep... I very much prefer killing terrorists rather than leaving them alive to form groups like ISIS. I think that killing them is much more effective than diplomacy and greatly deters them from being able to fly planes into buildings, decapitate innocent civilians, string up corpses of dead Marines or drag bodies of Ambassadors through the streets. Hard to do that when you're pushing up daisies.

You really should be more careful about calling your betters, "pinhead"...

• "I think that we will one day find a substantial cache of WMDs buried remotely somewhere inside Iraq and that will account for any 'stockpiles' he had." - boss
  
  
• "I didn't say "we'll" find them. I said they will be found, eventually." - boss

.... oh ... and the terrorists weren't in Iraq until we invaded.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Never said the offer didn't happen, pinhead.

Yep... I very much prefer killing terrorists rather than leaving them alive to form groups like ISIS. I think that killing them is much more effective than diplomacy and greatly deters them from being able to fly planes into buildings, decapitate innocent civilians, string up corpses of dead Marines or drag bodies of Ambassadors through the streets. Hard to do that when you're pushing up daisies.

But then the US has been going killing "terrorists" for a decade and a half, and yet there are MORE "terrorists" now than there were when they started. Go figure.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11698272

Yep... I very much prefer killing terrorists rather than leaving them alive to form groups like ISIS.

We are talking about an offer from Iraq to allow the CIA to come in and look for suspected WMD stockpiles. It was not about killing terrorists in Iraq because there were none related to the AlQaeda Sunni brand of terrorists. There were no Shiite terrorists in Iraq in March 2003. You are running from the fact of the offer by diverting to killing terrorists. Everybody wants to kill terrorists. Obama has killed more terrorists than Bush and Cheney could have ever dreamed of.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11694647

You see; I think your stupid little brain got caught up in thinking of WMDs as being a threat as potential weapons against us, and that was not really the argument regarding WMDs. It was his capability and operational wherewithal to produce mass quantities of WMDs clandestinely and without anyone knowing about it. THAT was the issue... not the material presence of active WMDs.

Hold on there Bozo. How would the CIA provide intelligence to Bush43 if the 'issue' was that Iraq had the operational wherewithal to produce mass quantities of WMDs without no one knowing about it. Did that include the CIA itself, in this cobbled up fairy-tale you are telling now? Could Bush43 have before him on March 17, 2003, CIA and other intelligence agencies, evidence that 'leaves no doubt' that Iraq could produce mass quantities of WMDs clandestinely and without no one, including the CIA, knowing about it? Do you actually realize what you are putting in writing here? Answer to us how the CIA knows about it if no one is capable of knowing about it? And why did Bush lie then saying he 'knew about it - without a doubt.

 

[amrchaos]

Is "Blame Boosh" back in vogue?

Its election time and Jeb is running--of course it is. So let us blame Bush for something ridiculous to kick the Blame Bush frenzy off!!

I blame Bush for zombie chickens infected with bird flu, ISIS propaganda, and hermaphrodite marriages!!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

amrchaos 11700592

Is "Blame Boosh" back in vogue? Its election time and Jeb is running--of course it is. So let us blame Bush for something ridiculous to kick the Blame Bush frenzy off! I blame Bush for zombie chickens infected with bird flu, ISIS propaganda, and hermaphrodite marriages!!

The thread was started with several right wing goons trying to blame Obama for the creation of ISIS. The facts prove that is not true. To establish facts and correct history as well as the universal laws of cause and effect, Bush must be mentioned since this is not Stalinist Soviet Union where bad leaders can be purged from our memories as much as we'd like Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld to go away. We cannot purge the bad memory of how 4484 U.S. Soldiers ended up dead for no good reason. We cannot purge that Bush43 decision to kick UN inspectors out of Iraq and start a war. We cannot purge the 2003 invasion into Iraq is what initially boosted ISIS, the Daesh terrorist scum, to the level of terror they have reached this past year. Obama did not start a war to topple the regime in Syria as Bush did in March 2003 to topple the regime in Iraq. Those are two critical facts.

Now do you have any factual and logical contribution to add to this topic or is whining about blaming Bush the extent of your intellectual capacity?

Do you have anything intelligent to say? Can you back up any of the untrue claims that Boss, the OP has made since starting this thread with bs such that SH moved his entire clandestine CW and BW production capabilities to Syria just before the invasion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Is "Blame Boosh" back in vogue?

Its election time and Jeb is running--of course it is. So let us blame Bush for something ridiculous to kick the Blame Bush frenzy off!!

I blame Bush for zombie chickens infected with bird flu, ISIS propaganda, and hermaphrodite marriages!!

The funny thing is, Bush messed up big time, several times, and Republicans think that just because he's not in office any more, his f*ck ups should mean nothing any more.

I see you don't say Bush didn't f*ck up badly, you always go for the "it's the blame Bush time again", trying to divert attention away from the reality.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11698272

Never said the offer didn't happen, pinhead.

I never said you said that, but you seriously doubted it ever happened and you admitted you knew nothing about it at the time it happened. Don't you pay attention when a U.S. president may have been planning a war of aggression against a sovereign nation where US troops are being asked to kill and die for the rest of us?

You should. Ignorance about such things by our citizenry often leads to catastrophe as the invasion of Iraq was and still is.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Why are you so afraid of isis? Just stay in this country and you're safe from them.

That's what THESE people thought as well...

But that was on Bush's watch. He's gone. We're safe.

 

[Boss]

Never said the offer didn't happen, pinhead.

Yep... I very much prefer killing terrorists rather than leaving them alive to form groups like ISIS. I think that killing them is much more effective than diplomacy and greatly deters them from being able to fly planes into buildings, decapitate innocent civilians, string up corpses of dead Marines or drag bodies of Ambassadors through the streets. Hard to do that when you're pushing up daisies.

But then the US has been going killing "terrorists" for a decade and a half, and yet there are MORE "terrorists" now than there were when they started. Go figure.

Besides Afghanistan, where have we gone to kill terrorists?

 

[Boss]

Boss 11698272

Never said the offer didn't happen, pinhead.

I never said you said that, but you seriously doubted it ever happened and you admitted you knew nothing about it at the time it happened. Don't you pay attention when a U.S. president may have been planning a war of aggression against a sovereign nation where US troops are being asked to kill and die for the rest of us?

You should. Ignorance about such things by our citizenry often leads to catastrophe as the invasion of Iraq was and still is.

No, I said I didn't remember it but after you went on and on about it, I did some research and I do remember it after all. I had forgotten about it because it was so insignificant. I do seriously doubt Saddam Hussein was going to allow CIA agents to poke and prod around Iraq freely to search for WMDs. My rational mind just can't fathom this because it is so split from reality. He was vehemently opposed to "neutral" UN inspectors following a protocol voted on by the UN nations and literally ignored 17 resolutions... yet he was welcoming CIA to do whatever they please? Give me a break, I'm not that stupid, no one is.

He wanted to try and derail a plan that was already in motion. The US had NO OBLIGATION to do any damn thing! The onus was on Saddam, not the CIA, to confirm he had dismantled and destroyed his WMD programs. He was ordered to do that immediately under UN1441. He did not do that immediately, he wasn't ever going to do it.