The Bush Administration Was "ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN" That Saddam Hussein Had WMDs

[Dubya]

..and he did have them. Google is you're friend.

Sure Saddam did, like you can claim you own a gun, when we get done with your NRA loving ass!

 

[Billo_Really]

..and he did have them. Google is you're friend.

Not after 1993.

 

[LilOlLady]

Author claims Bush knew Iraq had no WMD

Journalist Ron Suskind says Bush ordered forgery linking Saddam, al-Qaeda

President Bush committed an impeachable offense by ordering the CIA to to manufacture a false pretense for the Iraq war in the form of a backdated, handwritten document linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, an explosive new book claims.
Author: Bush knew Iraq had no WMD - TODAY News - TODAY.com

 

[SAYIT]

It was clearly a war for oil. That's why we import so much of our oil from Iraq now and it's our's for free.

.

How much oil are we importing from them?

All we can get! After all, it's FREE ... at least according to aplcr.

 

[SAYIT]

It amazes me the lengths that some of you progressives will go to in order to make George W. Bush the villian in this. Osama bin Laden is the bad guy here...not W. Bush simply responded to a cowardly attack on innocent civilians by going after the people responsible. He did so because the Taliban government in Afghanistan was providing sanctuary for thos people.

OBL WAS the bad guy. Now he sleeps with the fishes.

 

[LilOlLady]

..and he did have them. Google is you're friend.

Sure Saddam did, like you can claim you own a gun, when we get done with your NRA loving ass!

Bush says Iraq had no WMDs

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soohikNdbWs]Bush says Iraq had no WMDs - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SAYIT]

You are seriously delusional, dude!

You call me "delusional", then go on to confirm the point I was making with the Taliban "offer" (that there was one).

The Taliban wasn't going to turn over Osama bin Laden to the US no matter what "evidence" we presented.

How the fuck would you know?

They made an offer to have OBL tried by an Islamic court in Afghanistan which was turned down by the US and they made an offer to have him tried by an unnamed "third country" of their choosing, which the US also turned down. It should be noted that those offers only came after the US began bombing Afghanistan in preparation for an invasion.

They offered to try him in an Islamic court, before the war started and offered to turn him over to a third party, after the war started.

Why should we care where he was tried, as long as he was brought to justice?

I believe Oldstyle's point remains unchallenged. You incorrectly or mendaciously claimed the Taliban offered to turn OBL over to the US. A simple mea culpa was in order but you did not have the courage. Turning him over to a "third country" was not an acceptable option.

 

[Oldstyle]

All wars are a choice.

No they're not!

If someone attacks you, you have "no choice" but to defend yourself, like when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor.

Choosing to attack a country that did not attack you first, is a war of aggression, like when Hitler invaded Poland.

All wars are not wars of aggression. We didn't attack anyone living in Afghanistan.

Tell that to the wedding party we hit with a missle, killing 37 people (including the bride).

Tell that to the 8 Afghan women out collecting firewood (so they could cook dinner) that we blew to bits with a drone strike.

What invader?

How did they repay that? By harboring Osama bin Laden and Al Queda. THAT is a crime against humanity.

When the Taliban started getting reports about what UBL was doing, they warned him not to be planning any attacks on the US.

Letting a group that slaughters thousands of innocent civilians use your country as a base to train it's terrorists is a crime against humanity.

That's a pretty hypocritical thing to say in light of the fact that we have supported many groups in many country's that have slaughtered innocent civilians.

Just ask Chileans about our support for Pinochet.
Just ask the Sandinista's about our support for terrorists in that country.
Just ask the Iranian's about our support for the Shah of Iran.
Hell, you can even ask Iraqis about our support for Maliki's death squads.

What is the difference between the Japanese attacking us at Pearl Harbor and radical Islamists attacking us on 9/11? Or do you not grasp the concept that the Taliban was in fact setting up a base of operations for radical Islamists in Afghanistan to carry out attacks against the West? Should the Taliban be protected from reprisal simply because the Al Queda terrorists they allowed to train and base themselves in Afghanistan don't fight under the Afghan flag? That's an absurd argument.

Did the US missile attack that killed civilians in Afghanistan happen before or after 9/11? If it happened after then I fail to see how that was an excuse for them to provide support for the likes of Osama bin Laden. If it happened afterwards then I feel sorry for the loss of innocent life but that's what happens when you become an "outlaw" nation...innocents in YOUR country are harmed.

The fact that you don't know that we supported the Afghan resistance against the Soviets when they invaded says volumes about your general knowledge, Loinboy. I'd suggest staying off the progressive internet sites and actually reading some history books.

 

[Billo_Really]

What is the difference between the Japanese attacking us at Pearl Harbor and radical Islamists attacking us on 9/11?

One was from a country, the other from a criminal organization.

Big difference.

Or do you not grasp the concept that the Taliban was in fact setting up a base of operations for radical Islamists in Afghanistan to carry out attacks against the West?

They were renting out a certain patch of land to UBL and were not checking in on him to see what he was doing until they started getting reports about his intentions.

Should the Taliban be protected from reprisal simply because the Al Queda terrorists they allowed to train and base themselves in Afghanistan don't fight under the Afghan flag? That's an absurd argument.

The Taliban were not complicit in 9/11.

Did the US missile attack that killed civilians in Afghanistan happen before or after 9/11? If it happened after then I fail to see how that was an excuse for them to provide support for the likes of Osama bin Laden. If it happened afterwards then I feel sorry for the loss of innocent life but that's what happens when you become an "outlaw" nation...innocents in YOUR country are harmed.

You made the appeal that innocent civilians were killed to support military intervention against a sovereign nation and I said that was a pretty hypocritical statement considering the fact that we've killed 10 times as many innocent civilians in several country's.

The fact that you don't know that we supported the Afghan resistance against the Soviets when they invaded says volumes about your general knowledge, Loinboy. I'd suggest staying off the progressive internet sites and actually reading some history books.

Just because I haven't commented on that, doesn't mean I don't know anything about it.

That was during the time UBL was on the CIA payroll.

 

[Billo_Really]

I believe Oldstyle's point remains unchallenged. You incorrectly or mendaciously claimed the Taliban offered to turn OBL over to the US. A simple mea culpa was in order but you did not have the courage. Turning him over to a "third country" was not an acceptable option.

That doesn't negate the fact there was an offer.

 

[Billo_Really]

Bush says Iraq had no WMDs

Bush says Iraq had no WMDs - YouTube

He also said he laced his Alabama Kush with cocaine.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgzLT4EJ4K8]harold and kumar 2 bush clip - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Mr Blix, who has since retired to Sweden, said his inspectors found no compelling evidence that Iraq had a hidden arsenal or was blocking the work of the inspectors. He said there had been only small infractions by Iraq.

"We did express ourselves in dry terms but there was no mistake about the content," he said. "One cannot say there was compelling evidence. Iraq was guilty only of small infractions. The government should have re-evaluated its assessment in the light of what the inspectors found.

"We reported consistently that we found no weapons of mass destruction and I carried out inspections at sites given to us by US and British intelligence and not found anything." Blix insists there was no firm weapons evidence | Politics | The Guardian

 

[Oldstyle]

Why should we care where the man responsible for killing thousands of Americans is tried? Are you always this naive? You actually think that a trial conducted by Islamic fundamentalists who hate the US, would have resulted in a guilty verdict against Osama bin Laden? We should have cared where he was tried because if the trial happened in Afghanistan then he would never have been "brought to justice".

Just because your an Islamic nation, doesn't mean you hate the US.

Under international law it is legal to attack another nation to prevent an imminent attack on your own country.

There were no Afghan warships off our coast.

There were no threats of attack from the Afhgan government.

Therefore, the question of "imminence", doesn't apply.

Since Afghanistan was harboring the entity that had repeatedly attacked the US then a case can be made that the attack by coalition forces to oust the Taliban was made to prevent further attacks on their countries.

Harboring a terrorist, is not a legal reason to attack a country.

Otherwise, it would be legal for Cuba to attack the US over Posada.

A country harboring someone who is planning imminent attacks on another nation is very much given a legal reason to that other nation to protect itself by invading. Cuba would indeed have the legal right to invade the US if it harbors a terrorist that is planning more attacks. I think Luis Posada Carrilles is no better than Osama bin Laden and our support of dictators who torture and kill is a mistake that we have made repeatedly over the years...with horrific results.

 

[Billo_Really]

A country harboring someone who is planning imminent attacks on another nation is very much given a legal reason to that other nation to protect itself by invading. Cuba would indeed have the legal right to invade the US if it harbors a terrorist that is planning more attacks. I think Luis Posada Carrilles is no better than Osama bin Laden and our support of dictators who torture and kill is a mistake that we have made repeatedly over the years...with horrific results.

2 out of 3 agreements isn't bad.

 

[Billo_Really]

Mr Blix, who has since retired to Sweden, said his inspectors found no compelling evidence that Iraq had a hidden arsenal or was blocking the work of the inspectors. He said there had been only small infractions by Iraq.

"We did express ourselves in dry terms but there was no mistake about the content," he said. "One cannot say there was compelling evidence. Iraq was guilty only of small infractions. The government should have re-evaluated its assessment in the light of what the inspectors found.

"We reported consistently that we found no weapons of mass destruction and I carried out inspections at sites given to us by US and British intelligence and not found anything." Blix insists there was no firm weapons evidence | Politics | The Guardian

And Blix wasn't a fool either.

He also said that just because they haven't found any, doesn't mean they don't exist. But at that point in time, they couldn't say they did.

 

[SAYIT]

All wars are a choice.

No they're not!

If someone attacks you, you have "no choice" but to defend yourself, like when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor.

Choosing to attack a country that did not attack you first, is a war of aggression, like when Hitler invaded Poland.

Tell that to the wedding party we hit with a missle, killing 37 people (including the bride).

Tell that to the 8 Afghan women out collecting firewood (so they could cook dinner) that we blew to bits with a drone strike.

What invader?

When the Taliban started getting reports about what UBL was doing, they warned him not to be planning any attacks on the US.

Letting a group that slaughters thousands of innocent civilians use your country as a base to train it's terrorists is a crime against humanity.

That's a pretty hypocritical thing to say in light of the fact that we have supported many groups in many country's that have slaughtered innocent civilians.

Just ask Chileans about our support for Pinochet.
Just ask the Sandinista's about our support for terrorists in that country.
Just ask the Iranian's about our support for the Shah of Iran.
Hell, you can even ask Iraqis about our support for Maliki's death squads.

What is the difference between the Japanese attacking us at Pearl Harbor and radical Islamists attacking us on 9/11? Or do you not grasp the concept that the Taliban was in fact setting up a base of operations for radical Islamists in Afghanistan to carry out attacks against the West? Should the Taliban be protected from reprisal simply because the Al Queda terrorists they allowed to train and base themselves in Afghanistan don't fight under the Afghan flag? That's an absurd argument.

Did the US missile attack that killed civilians in Afghanistan happen before or after 9/11? If it happened after then I fail to see how that was an excuse for them to provide support for the likes of Osama bin Laden. If it happened afterwards then I feel sorry for the loss of innocent life but that's what happens when you become an "outlaw" nation...innocents in YOUR country are harmed.

The fact that you don't know that we supported the Afghan resistance against the Soviets when they invaded says volumes about your general knowledge, Loinboy. I'd suggest staying off the progressive internet sites and actually reading some history books.

The Taliban had a viable way out ... turn over OBL and STFU. They chose another path. Their fate was of their own choosing.

 

[Oldstyle]

What is the difference between the Japanese attacking us at Pearl Harbor and radical Islamists attacking us on 9/11?

One was from a country, the other from a criminal organization.

Big difference.

Or do you not grasp the concept that the Taliban was in fact setting up a base of operations for radical Islamists in Afghanistan to carry out attacks against the West?

They were renting out a certain patch of land to UBL and were not checking in on him to see what he was doing until they started getting reports about his intentions.

The Taliban were not complicit in 9/11.

Did the US missile attack that killed civilians in Afghanistan happen before or after 9/11? If it happened after then I fail to see how that was an excuse for them to provide support for the likes of Osama bin Laden. If it happened afterwards then I feel sorry for the loss of innocent life but that's what happens when you become an "outlaw" nation...innocents in YOUR country are harmed.

You made the appeal that innocent civilians were killed to support military intervention against a sovereign nation and I said that was a pretty hypocritical statement considering the fact that we've killed 10 times as many innocent civilians in several country's.

The fact that you don't know that we supported the Afghan resistance against the Soviets when they invaded says volumes about your general knowledge, Loinboy. I'd suggest staying off the progressive internet sites and actually reading some history books.

Just because I haven't commented on that, doesn't mean I don't know anything about it.

That was during the time UBL was on the CIA payroll.

The notion that radical fundamentalists are "criminals" and not engaged in a war against the West is vague concept that progressives like yourself seem determined to cling to despite evidence to the contrary. We're presently witnessing the coalescence of radical fundamentalists throughout the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Taliban are taking political power. They are not criminal organizations...they are radical Islamic fundamentalists who seek to impose their views on the rest of the world by force.

As for innocents being killed in wars? Thousands of French civilians were killed in the bombing that preceded and followed D-Day. Does that mean that the Allies were "war criminals" for invading Europe? Were innocent people killed by us in Afghanistan? Yes they were. It's what happens in war. And if you're the leader of a country and you CARE about your people then you do everything you can not to put them into a position like that. You don't let groups like Al Queda set up terrorist training camps in your country because you KNOW that what they are training for is the slaughter of innocents which WILL engender a response from those who are attacked. You want to blame someone for those deaths? Blame the Taliban leadership that looked the other way while Osama bin Laden did his thing!

 

[SAYIT]

I believe Oldstyle's point remains unchallenged. You incorrectly or mendaciously claimed the Taliban offered to turn OBL over to the US. A simple mea culpa was in order but you did not have the courage. Turning him over to a "third country" was not an acceptable option.

That doesn't negate the fact there was an offer.

An offer that was justifiably unacceptable to the US and you still haven't the courage to admit your original claim was bogus. The Taliban did not offer to turn him over to the US, an act which could have saved them and the Afghans much grief. The choice was theirs and they chose wrongly. End of story.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Mr Blix, who has since retired to Sweden, said his inspectors found no compelling evidence that Iraq had a hidden arsenal or was blocking the work of the inspectors. He said there had been only small infractions by Iraq.

"We did express ourselves in dry terms but there was no mistake about the content," he said. "One cannot say there was compelling evidence. Iraq was guilty only of small infractions. The government should have re-evaluated its assessment in the light of what the inspectors found.

"We reported consistently that we found no weapons of mass destruction and I carried out inspections at sites given to us by US and British intelligence and not found anything." Blix insists there was no firm weapons evidence | Politics | The Guardian

And Blix wasn't a fool either.

He also said that just because they haven't found any, doesn't mean they don't exist. But at that point in time, they couldn't say they did.

you're delusional here

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Now that we’re out of Iraq, the CIA has come clean on how it came to be bamboozled about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ferrets over at the National Security Archive (NSA) petitioned for, and got, the CIA’s equivalent of the dog-ate-my-homework. (Technically, the NSA obtained this document under a mandatory-declassification-review request it made in 2006, which can be faster [It still took six years!] than an FOIA request if the requester has sufficient details on a specific document.)

Bottom line, from the CIA’s point of view: Saddam used to lie about possessing WMD, so we believed he still was.

Read more: The CIA's Mea Culpa on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction | TIME.com

and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_a...ion#Theories_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_war