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.
The intelligence assessment was incorrect
There was a limit to how long American would stand around letting Saddam and the UN play games.
Yup. I agree. Better relations with Russia is much better than bad relations.
That destruction of the devices could NEVER have been validated by the inspectors.
Claudette, post: 1632917Yup. I agree. Better relations with Russia is much better than bad relations.
Not if they intervene in elections to gain certain military and strategic advantages in order to diminish our influence and stature in the world.
Trump is aiding and abetting them by calling our CIA Director a purveyor in fake news.
Putin smiles.
Correll, post: 16330488More time was just stalling while various people tried to sabotage the war effort
So people like Putin and Hillary Clinton, the UN inspectors, who favored a diplomatic solution were sabotaging the war effort although they were proven correct. War was not necessary to confirm Iraq was disarmed of WMD.
But people like you and Bush, Cheney 90% of Republicans who favored war over diplomacy/active ongoing inspections with no bloodshed must admit that you are warmongers.
You are guilty of sabotaging the peaceful effort of verifying that Iraq was disarmed as long as Iraq was cooperating with the inspectors.
Saving 4485 American service members lives would have been worth giving diplomacy a shot for a few more months when there was no threat from Iraq with inspectors on the ground there. Don't you think, Republican certified warmonger?
Correll, post: 16331228Finish? Finish what? THey were never going to FINISH anything. They had failed to verify compliance.
You have no way of knowing that. Biix and al Beradai both insisted they could finish, just not in ten days as Bush attempted to demand.
Their peaceful work was cut short by Bush.
We do for a fact know that.
And we know that no WMD were found using the warmonger method.
Read the history. Blix was beginning to set up long term WMD monitoring in accordance with UN Resolutions for the imminent date that he would recommend sanctions be lifted.
SO you are against the very concept of considering the risks of military actions because such would be "pure speculation".
No. Considering the risk of military action has no bearing when facing a credible actionable military threat.
....
THAT's an unsupported assumption on your part.
That's a lie. I supported it. Going by what the inspectors themselves professionally reported.
Correll, post: 16331228It was on Saddam to demonstrate that he had met the terms of the peace. HE did not do so. The inspectors were unable to do so either.
Read 1441. Saddam did so prior to the invasion. There was no deadline for complete declaration of compliance in 1441. He had to allow unfettered inspections and cooperate. Which he did as reported by the inspectors.
Correll, post: 16330488That destruction of the devices could NEVER have been validated by the inspectors.
Not true. They were trying to develop a testing plan to quantify tonnage of what was destroyed in the early nineties.
Bush shut it down not Saddam.
That is utter madness.
What ever minor "threat" you think there is from Russia air operations in Syria, declaring a no fly zone and risking war with Russia, a very large nation with thousands of nuclear weapons...
Balancing the risks versus any possible benefit is morally and ethnically REQUIRED.
Not doing so is the act of a moronic madman.
Or moronic mad woman in the case of HIllary.
The intelligence assessment was incorrect
All the 2002 assessments were provided to the inspectors and none of the checked out.
So I don't know what assessments you are talking about in 2003 other than Bush's word.
Trump says Bush lied. Why do you doubt Trump.
That is utter madness.
What ever minor "threat" you think there is from Russia air operations in Syria, declaring a no fly zone and risking war with Russia, a very large nation with thousands of nuclear weapons...
Balancing the risks versus any possible benefit is morally and ethnically REQUIRED.
Not doing so is the act of a moronic madman.
Or moronic mad woman in the case of HIllary.
It seems that most American politicians care more about the interests of Israel, waging wars for Israel's security, than about the interests of the American taxpayers.
American cannot protect their own boarders, it is invaded by third world countries, the American infrastructure crumbles, America looks more and more like a third world country, with growing unemployment and unaffordable medical insurance.
But American taxpayers still have to pay for crazy wars on the other side of the globe, protecting boarders of countries that an American Normie would never find on the map.
Does that make any sense?
Americans are sympathetic to Israel and have nothing but contempt for their vile terrorists enemies.
Americans are sympathetic to Israel and have nothing but contempt for their vile terrorists enemies.
American taxpayers are sending their money to protect Israel, because the controlled MSM makes them to believe that Israel is the best friend of the USA.
Most Americans have never heard about the Lavon affair, about the attack on the USS liberty and about the Pollard Case.
What to terrorism in the Middle East - this vicious circle of terrorism began with the terrorism of Zionists.
No, I think Trump was being unfair to Bush on that issue
Correll, post: 16328858No, I think Trump was being unfair to Bush on that issue
So the buck does not stop with President Bush for his ultimate lone decision to force peaceful inspectors out and invade a country, kill and maim hundreds of thousands of human beings, destroy their property, open inroads to terrorists, for the sole purpose of finding WMD that the inspectors were finding no evidence that they existed.
And you think Trump is being unfair.
Wow!
But if Hillary as a candidate suggests an idea to put a NFZ over one besieged city in Alleppo she is considered a warmonger.
You are so far gone as a political hack you probably can't find yourself or a principled position to hang your hat on.
It's funny how harsh your judgement on Bush is, but you never see anything with Saddam's behavior as an issue.
1. The decision was not his alone.
