Too Funny: Protesting Guatamalens Protest ‘The Squad,’ Nancy Pelosi: ‘We Will Send You Back!’

[Andylusion]

Apparently you failed at basic reading. Try again stupid.

So if you were given information that said Iraq was working on WMDs, and was violating the UN resolution to destroy and document the destruction of it's WMDs, you would just ignore it and allow them to give WMDs to terrorist networks?

And here's the real hypocrisy... if Bush had ignored all the Intelligence data that said Saddam was going to be a threat, and the Saddam had actually given chemical weapons to a terrorist network, and filled a New York subway with VX gas, you disgusting hypocritical trash would been demanding impeachment.

They didn’t find any WMD, and the UN had already said that there weren’t any. You lose, numpty.

The UN did not say there were no WMD AT THAT TIME... and we did find WMDs. We found stock piles of chemical weapons that Saddam was supposed to have destroyed, but didn't. In fact we had to treat our solider for chemical weapons exposure, you uninformed idiot.

Further, if you knew anything, you would know that the Rockefeller investigation found that everything President Bush said at that time, was supported by the intelligence information we had at that time.

Did you miss that stupid? Everything Bush said, was supported by the intelligence we had at that time. Rockefeller, a life long Democrat in government, running the investigation, concluded this.

So my question to you again is....

So if you were given information that said Iraq was working on WMDs, and was violating the UN resolution to destroy and document the destruction of it's WMDs, you would just ignore it and allow them to give WMDs to terrorist networks?

And here's the real hypocrisy... if Bush had ignored all the Intelligence data that said Saddam was going to be a threat, and the Saddam had actually given chemical weapons to a terrorist network, and filled a New York subway with VX gas, you disgusting hypocritical trash would been demanding impeachment.

And you know I'm right, whether you are have enough honor and integrity to admit it, or not.

Do you need a link to the Rockefeller report? I have copy on my computer. Of course I'm a right-winger, and am informed enough to read such things, whereas you being a left-winger likely haven't read anything useful in your life.

We found NO WMD, otherwise, link me.

Declassified CIA Document Reveals Iraq War Had Zero Justification

Chemical Weapons in Iraq: Revealing the Pentagon’s Long-Held Secrets

The New York times wrote about our soldiers suffering from exposure to chemical weapons.

How do you write about soldiers being treated for exposure to chemical weapons that don't exist?

Saddam was supposed to prove to the UN, according to the resolution in 1991, that he destroyed ALL of his chemical weapon stock piles. If we find a stock pile... any stock pile.... at all.... they violated the cease fire agreement.

Regardless....... you still seem to be missing the point.

Let's say that there were no chemical weapons in Iraq at all. None.

Still does not change the fact that all of the intel we had AT THAT TIME.... said they did, and were working on other WMD too.

So it does not matter if they found any WMDs or not. Bush was operating on the best intelligence information we had AT THAT TIME.

He didn't lie. He told the truth. The information he gave at all of his press conferences justifying the Iraq war, were all supported by the intelligence information we had AT THAT TIME.

If you want to blame anyone for this, you would have to blame Bill Clinton, who cut funding and imposed rules on Intelligence gathering, during his administration. Perhaps if Bill Clinton had not damaged our CIA so much, maybe they would have had more accurate information.

Saddam had gassed his own people years before that, so there was probably so residue left. But no WMD at the time of the second invasion. Plus, Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

I never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. What are you doing now? Making up arguments I never said, in order to pretend you are defeating it?

C.I.A. Is Said to Have Bought and Destroyed Iraqi Chemical Weapons

Matt Vespa - Yeah, Iraq Had WMDs; CIA Bought Them From Secret Dealer

Those are chemical weapons. Not a residue.

And the CIA recently declassified that they were buying chemical weapons on the black market in Iraq, in order to prevent them from being used against us or others.

They were not buying chemical residues for destruction. They were buying chemical weapons.

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if your are just an over-achiever at being uninformed, or if I'm talking to a partisan hack.

How can you even say something that dumb, when the soldiers who sued the government to get treatment for chemical weapons exposure, said openly they were exposed while disposing of weapon stock piles, that turned out to be chemical weapons?

Either you are pathetically uninformed about a position you pretend to care a lot about, or you are just a partisan hack, who doesn't care about the truth anyway.

And by the way, there is actually a ton of evidence that there were newer WMDs in Iraq, that were moved out just before the invasion.

Are Syria's Chemical Weapons Iraq's Missing WMD? Obama's Director of Intelligence Thought So.

We know for a fact, that some of those weapons ended up in Syria, which is how they were able to deploy chemical weapons on their people.

There is tons of evidence that Iraq had WMDs. Tons. Only the people who simply refuse to know the truth, and want to believe something different for political purposes, are unaware of this.

 

[Taz]

They didn’t find any WMD, and the UN had already said that there weren’t any. You lose, numpty.

The UN did not say there were no WMD AT THAT TIME... and we did find WMDs. We found stock piles of chemical weapons that Saddam was supposed to have destroyed, but didn't. In fact we had to treat our solider for chemical weapons exposure, you uninformed idiot.

Further, if you knew anything, you would know that the Rockefeller investigation found that everything President Bush said at that time, was supported by the intelligence information we had at that time.

Did you miss that stupid? Everything Bush said, was supported by the intelligence we had at that time. Rockefeller, a life long Democrat in government, running the investigation, concluded this.

So my question to you again is....

So if you were given information that said Iraq was working on WMDs, and was violating the UN resolution to destroy and document the destruction of it's WMDs, you would just ignore it and allow them to give WMDs to terrorist networks?

And here's the real hypocrisy... if Bush had ignored all the Intelligence data that said Saddam was going to be a threat, and the Saddam had actually given chemical weapons to a terrorist network, and filled a New York subway with VX gas, you disgusting hypocritical trash would been demanding impeachment.

And you know I'm right, whether you are have enough honor and integrity to admit it, or not.

Do you need a link to the Rockefeller report? I have copy on my computer. Of course I'm a right-winger, and am informed enough to read such things, whereas you being a left-winger likely haven't read anything useful in your life.

We found NO WMD, otherwise, link me.

Declassified CIA Document Reveals Iraq War Had Zero Justification

Chemical Weapons in Iraq: Revealing the Pentagon’s Long-Held Secrets

The New York times wrote about our soldiers suffering from exposure to chemical weapons.

How do you write about soldiers being treated for exposure to chemical weapons that don't exist?

Saddam was supposed to prove to the UN, according to the resolution in 1991, that he destroyed ALL of his chemical weapon stock piles. If we find a stock pile... any stock pile.... at all.... they violated the cease fire agreement.

Regardless....... you still seem to be missing the point.

Let's say that there were no chemical weapons in Iraq at all. None.

Still does not change the fact that all of the intel we had AT THAT TIME.... said they did, and were working on other WMD too.

So it does not matter if they found any WMDs or not. Bush was operating on the best intelligence information we had AT THAT TIME.

He didn't lie. He told the truth. The information he gave at all of his press conferences justifying the Iraq war, were all supported by the intelligence information we had AT THAT TIME.

If you want to blame anyone for this, you would have to blame Bill Clinton, who cut funding and imposed rules on Intelligence gathering, during his administration. Perhaps if Bill Clinton had not damaged our CIA so much, maybe they would have had more accurate information.

Saddam had gassed his own people years before that, so there was probably so residue left. But no WMD at the time of the second invasion. Plus, Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

I never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. What are you doing now? Making up arguments I never said, in order to pretend you are defeating it?

C.I.A. Is Said to Have Bought and Destroyed Iraqi Chemical Weapons

Matt Vespa - Yeah, Iraq Had WMDs; CIA Bought Them From Secret Dealer

Those are chemical weapons. Not a residue.

And the CIA recently declassified that they were buying chemical weapons on the black market in Iraq, in order to prevent them from being used against us or others.

They were not buying chemical residues for destruction. They were buying chemical weapons.

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if your are just an over-achiever at being uninformed, or if I'm talking to a partisan hack.

How can you even say something that dumb, when the soldiers who sued the government to get treatment for chemical weapons exposure, said openly they were exposed while disposing of weapon stock piles, that turned out to be chemical weapons?

Either you are pathetically uninformed about a position you pretend to care a lot about, or you are just a partisan hack, who doesn't care about the truth anyway.

And by the way, there is actually a ton of evidence that there were newer WMDs in Iraq, that were moved out just before the invasion.

Are Syria's Chemical Weapons Iraq's Missing WMD? Obama's Director of Intelligence Thought So.

We know for a fact, that some of those weapons ended up in Syria, which is how they were able to deploy chemical weapons on their people.

There is tons of evidence that Iraq had WMDs. Tons. Only the people who simply refuse to know the truth, and want to believe something different for political purposes, are unaware of this.

No WMD were found. You lose.

 

[mudwhistle]

"More than 500 Guatemalans marched through the Avenida la Reforma in Guatemala City on Thursday and protested outside the U.S. embassy against a Congressional Delegation led by Pelosi that is scheduled to arrive in the country on August 8, just three days before the nation’s second round of elections.

Protesters called for sovereignty for Guatemala against U.S. intervention, holding signs that read, “We will send you back” and “DemocRATS not welcome, this is NOT your country!”



What a bunch or 'racists' - we should stop sending them foreign aid.




Guatemalans Protest 'The Squad,' Nancy Pelosi: 'We Will Send You Back!'


.

Good thing Hillary isn't president or she'd start a war there.

 

[Andylusion]

The UN did not say there were no WMD AT THAT TIME... and we did find WMDs. We found stock piles of chemical weapons that Saddam was supposed to have destroyed, but didn't. In fact we had to treat our solider for chemical weapons exposure, you uninformed idiot.

Further, if you knew anything, you would know that the Rockefeller investigation found that everything President Bush said at that time, was supported by the intelligence information we had at that time.

Did you miss that stupid? Everything Bush said, was supported by the intelligence we had at that time. Rockefeller, a life long Democrat in government, running the investigation, concluded this.

So my question to you again is....

So if you were given information that said Iraq was working on WMDs, and was violating the UN resolution to destroy and document the destruction of it's WMDs, you would just ignore it and allow them to give WMDs to terrorist networks?

And here's the real hypocrisy... if Bush had ignored all the Intelligence data that said Saddam was going to be a threat, and the Saddam had actually given chemical weapons to a terrorist network, and filled a New York subway with VX gas, you disgusting hypocritical trash would been demanding impeachment.

And you know I'm right, whether you are have enough honor and integrity to admit it, or not.

Do you need a link to the Rockefeller report? I have copy on my computer. Of course I'm a right-winger, and am informed enough to read such things, whereas you being a left-winger likely haven't read anything useful in your life.

We found NO WMD, otherwise, link me.

Declassified CIA Document Reveals Iraq War Had Zero Justification

Chemical Weapons in Iraq: Revealing the Pentagon’s Long-Held Secrets

The New York times wrote about our soldiers suffering from exposure to chemical weapons.

How do you write about soldiers being treated for exposure to chemical weapons that don't exist?

Saddam was supposed to prove to the UN, according to the resolution in 1991, that he destroyed ALL of his chemical weapon stock piles. If we find a stock pile... any stock pile.... at all.... they violated the cease fire agreement.

Regardless....... you still seem to be missing the point.

Let's say that there were no chemical weapons in Iraq at all. None.

Still does not change the fact that all of the intel we had AT THAT TIME.... said they did, and were working on other WMD too.

So it does not matter if they found any WMDs or not. Bush was operating on the best intelligence information we had AT THAT TIME.

He didn't lie. He told the truth. The information he gave at all of his press conferences justifying the Iraq war, were all supported by the intelligence information we had AT THAT TIME.

If you want to blame anyone for this, you would have to blame Bill Clinton, who cut funding and imposed rules on Intelligence gathering, during his administration. Perhaps if Bill Clinton had not damaged our CIA so much, maybe they would have had more accurate information.

Saddam had gassed his own people years before that, so there was probably so residue left. But no WMD at the time of the second invasion. Plus, Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

I never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. What are you doing now? Making up arguments I never said, in order to pretend you are defeating it?

C.I.A. Is Said to Have Bought and Destroyed Iraqi Chemical Weapons

Matt Vespa - Yeah, Iraq Had WMDs; CIA Bought Them From Secret Dealer

Those are chemical weapons. Not a residue.

And the CIA recently declassified that they were buying chemical weapons on the black market in Iraq, in order to prevent them from being used against us or others.

They were not buying chemical residues for destruction. They were buying chemical weapons.

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if your are just an over-achiever at being uninformed, or if I'm talking to a partisan hack.

How can you even say something that dumb, when the soldiers who sued the government to get treatment for chemical weapons exposure, said openly they were exposed while disposing of weapon stock piles, that turned out to be chemical weapons?

Either you are pathetically uninformed about a position you pretend to care a lot about, or you are just a partisan hack, who doesn't care about the truth anyway.

And by the way, there is actually a ton of evidence that there were newer WMDs in Iraq, that were moved out just before the invasion.

Are Syria's Chemical Weapons Iraq's Missing WMD? Obama's Director of Intelligence Thought So.

We know for a fact, that some of those weapons ended up in Syria, which is how they were able to deploy chemical weapons on their people.

There is tons of evidence that Iraq had WMDs. Tons. Only the people who simply refuse to know the truth, and want to believe something different for political purposes, are unaware of this.

No WMD were found. You lose.

You have the right to be ignorant and wrong.

At least everyone can see that I posted facts, compared to your non-stop partisan talking point.

But I do have to thank you for one thing. You have now identified yourself as a partisan hack, uninterested in the truth. So at least I know what kind of trash I'm talking to.

 

[Taz]

We found NO WMD, otherwise, link me.

Declassified CIA Document Reveals Iraq War Had Zero Justification

Chemical Weapons in Iraq: Revealing the Pentagon’s Long-Held Secrets

The New York times wrote about our soldiers suffering from exposure to chemical weapons.

How do you write about soldiers being treated for exposure to chemical weapons that don't exist?

Saddam was supposed to prove to the UN, according to the resolution in 1991, that he destroyed ALL of his chemical weapon stock piles. If we find a stock pile... any stock pile.... at all.... they violated the cease fire agreement.

Regardless....... you still seem to be missing the point.

Let's say that there were no chemical weapons in Iraq at all. None.

Still does not change the fact that all of the intel we had AT THAT TIME.... said they did, and were working on other WMD too.

So it does not matter if they found any WMDs or not. Bush was operating on the best intelligence information we had AT THAT TIME.

He didn't lie. He told the truth. The information he gave at all of his press conferences justifying the Iraq war, were all supported by the intelligence information we had AT THAT TIME.

If you want to blame anyone for this, you would have to blame Bill Clinton, who cut funding and imposed rules on Intelligence gathering, during his administration. Perhaps if Bill Clinton had not damaged our CIA so much, maybe they would have had more accurate information.

Saddam had gassed his own people years before that, so there was probably so residue left. But no WMD at the time of the second invasion. Plus, Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

I never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. What are you doing now? Making up arguments I never said, in order to pretend you are defeating it?

C.I.A. Is Said to Have Bought and Destroyed Iraqi Chemical Weapons

Matt Vespa - Yeah, Iraq Had WMDs; CIA Bought Them From Secret Dealer

Those are chemical weapons. Not a residue.

And the CIA recently declassified that they were buying chemical weapons on the black market in Iraq, in order to prevent them from being used against us or others.

They were not buying chemical residues for destruction. They were buying chemical weapons.

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if your are just an over-achiever at being uninformed, or if I'm talking to a partisan hack.

How can you even say something that dumb, when the soldiers who sued the government to get treatment for chemical weapons exposure, said openly they were exposed while disposing of weapon stock piles, that turned out to be chemical weapons?

Either you are pathetically uninformed about a position you pretend to care a lot about, or you are just a partisan hack, who doesn't care about the truth anyway.

And by the way, there is actually a ton of evidence that there were newer WMDs in Iraq, that were moved out just before the invasion.

Are Syria's Chemical Weapons Iraq's Missing WMD? Obama's Director of Intelligence Thought So.

We know for a fact, that some of those weapons ended up in Syria, which is how they were able to deploy chemical weapons on their people.

There is tons of evidence that Iraq had WMDs. Tons. Only the people who simply refuse to know the truth, and want to believe something different for political purposes, are unaware of this.

No WMD were found. You lose.

You have the right to be ignorant and wrong.

At least everyone can see that I posted facts, compared to your non-stop partisan talking point.

But I do have to thank you for one thing. You have now identified yourself as a partisan hack, uninterested in the truth. So at least I know what kind of trash I'm talking to.

You're ignoring the fact that no WMD were found. And your links were unaccessable.

 

[Andylusion]

Chemical Weapons in Iraq: Revealing the Pentagon’s Long-Held Secrets

The New York times wrote about our soldiers suffering from exposure to chemical weapons.

How do you write about soldiers being treated for exposure to chemical weapons that don't exist?

Saddam was supposed to prove to the UN, according to the resolution in 1991, that he destroyed ALL of his chemical weapon stock piles. If we find a stock pile... any stock pile.... at all.... they violated the cease fire agreement.

Regardless....... you still seem to be missing the point.

Let's say that there were no chemical weapons in Iraq at all. None.

Still does not change the fact that all of the intel we had AT THAT TIME.... said they did, and were working on other WMD too.

So it does not matter if they found any WMDs or not. Bush was operating on the best intelligence information we had AT THAT TIME.

He didn't lie. He told the truth. The information he gave at all of his press conferences justifying the Iraq war, were all supported by the intelligence information we had AT THAT TIME.

If you want to blame anyone for this, you would have to blame Bill Clinton, who cut funding and imposed rules on Intelligence gathering, during his administration. Perhaps if Bill Clinton had not damaged our CIA so much, maybe they would have had more accurate information.

Saddam had gassed his own people years before that, so there was probably so residue left. But no WMD at the time of the second invasion. Plus, Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

I never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. What are you doing now? Making up arguments I never said, in order to pretend you are defeating it?

C.I.A. Is Said to Have Bought and Destroyed Iraqi Chemical Weapons

Matt Vespa - Yeah, Iraq Had WMDs; CIA Bought Them From Secret Dealer

Those are chemical weapons. Not a residue.

And the CIA recently declassified that they were buying chemical weapons on the black market in Iraq, in order to prevent them from being used against us or others.

They were not buying chemical residues for destruction. They were buying chemical weapons.

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if your are just an over-achiever at being uninformed, or if I'm talking to a partisan hack.

How can you even say something that dumb, when the soldiers who sued the government to get treatment for chemical weapons exposure, said openly they were exposed while disposing of weapon stock piles, that turned out to be chemical weapons?

Either you are pathetically uninformed about a position you pretend to care a lot about, or you are just a partisan hack, who doesn't care about the truth anyway.

And by the way, there is actually a ton of evidence that there were newer WMDs in Iraq, that were moved out just before the invasion.

Are Syria's Chemical Weapons Iraq's Missing WMD? Obama's Director of Intelligence Thought So.

We know for a fact, that some of those weapons ended up in Syria, which is how they were able to deploy chemical weapons on their people.

There is tons of evidence that Iraq had WMDs. Tons. Only the people who simply refuse to know the truth, and want to believe something different for political purposes, are unaware of this.

No WMD were found. You lose.

You have the right to be ignorant and wrong.

At least everyone can see that I posted facts, compared to your non-stop partisan talking point.

But I do have to thank you for one thing. You have now identified yourself as a partisan hack, uninterested in the truth. So at least I know what kind of trash I'm talking to.

You're ignoring the fact that no WMD were found. And your links were unaccessable.

Enough partisan.... I checked all my links again, they all worked. I just the pictures, they are all accurate. You are just one of these "feelings over facts" AOC people. I could have one of the soldiers, that I know personally, come to your house and sit down with you, and show you the pictures of him removing chemical weapons, and you would still be here denying it for political purposes.

Stop wasting your time. You are not going to convince me of your lies, or anyone else for that matter. And everyone can click the links too, and see they work, and show evidence of my position. You are not fooling anyone. The only people convinced of your stupidity, are other fact-less partisan cowards like you.

 

[Taz]

Saddam had gassed his own people years before that, so there was probably so residue left. But no WMD at the time of the second invasion. Plus, Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

I never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. What are you doing now? Making up arguments I never said, in order to pretend you are defeating it?

C.I.A. Is Said to Have Bought and Destroyed Iraqi Chemical Weapons

Matt Vespa - Yeah, Iraq Had WMDs; CIA Bought Them From Secret Dealer

Those are chemical weapons. Not a residue.

And the CIA recently declassified that they were buying chemical weapons on the black market in Iraq, in order to prevent them from being used against us or others.

They were not buying chemical residues for destruction. They were buying chemical weapons.

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if your are just an over-achiever at being uninformed, or if I'm talking to a partisan hack.

How can you even say something that dumb, when the soldiers who sued the government to get treatment for chemical weapons exposure, said openly they were exposed while disposing of weapon stock piles, that turned out to be chemical weapons?

Either you are pathetically uninformed about a position you pretend to care a lot about, or you are just a partisan hack, who doesn't care about the truth anyway.

And by the way, there is actually a ton of evidence that there were newer WMDs in Iraq, that were moved out just before the invasion.

Are Syria's Chemical Weapons Iraq's Missing WMD? Obama's Director of Intelligence Thought So.

We know for a fact, that some of those weapons ended up in Syria, which is how they were able to deploy chemical weapons on their people.

There is tons of evidence that Iraq had WMDs. Tons. Only the people who simply refuse to know the truth, and want to believe something different for political purposes, are unaware of this.

No WMD were found. You lose.

You have the right to be ignorant and wrong.

At least everyone can see that I posted facts, compared to your non-stop partisan talking point.

But I do have to thank you for one thing. You have now identified yourself as a partisan hack, uninterested in the truth. So at least I know what kind of trash I'm talking to.

You're ignoring the fact that no WMD were found. And your links were unaccessable.

Enough partisan.... I checked all my links again, they all worked. I just the pictures, they are all accurate. You are just one of these "feelings over facts" AOC people. I could have one of the soldiers, that I know personally, come to your house and sit down with you, and show you the pictures of him removing chemical weapons, and you would still be here denying it for political purposes.

Stop wasting your time. You are not going to convince me of your lies, or anyone else for that matter. And everyone can click the links too, and see they work, and show evidence of my position. You are not fooling anyone. The only people convinced of your stupidity, are other fact-less partisan cowards like you.

Seriously, you think we invaded Iraq for that picture of shells that don't show anything except that they are really old and may or may not work? That's fucking ludicrous, brah. If the Cheney administration had found any WMD they would have paraded them down 5th Avenue. Why did we never hear of any WMD? Because your picture, even if containing mustard gas..., is LAUGHABLE!!!
And I'm a Libertarian, not a Dem. Sorry to bust that bubble as well.

 

[Andylusion]

I never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. What are you doing now? Making up arguments I never said, in order to pretend you are defeating it?

C.I.A. Is Said to Have Bought and Destroyed Iraqi Chemical Weapons

Matt Vespa - Yeah, Iraq Had WMDs; CIA Bought Them From Secret Dealer

Those are chemical weapons. Not a residue.

And the CIA recently declassified that they were buying chemical weapons on the black market in Iraq, in order to prevent them from being used against us or others.

They were not buying chemical residues for destruction. They were buying chemical weapons.

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if your are just an over-achiever at being uninformed, or if I'm talking to a partisan hack.

How can you even say something that dumb, when the soldiers who sued the government to get treatment for chemical weapons exposure, said openly they were exposed while disposing of weapon stock piles, that turned out to be chemical weapons?

Either you are pathetically uninformed about a position you pretend to care a lot about, or you are just a partisan hack, who doesn't care about the truth anyway.

And by the way, there is actually a ton of evidence that there were newer WMDs in Iraq, that were moved out just before the invasion.

Are Syria's Chemical Weapons Iraq's Missing WMD? Obama's Director of Intelligence Thought So.

We know for a fact, that some of those weapons ended up in Syria, which is how they were able to deploy chemical weapons on their people.

There is tons of evidence that Iraq had WMDs. Tons. Only the people who simply refuse to know the truth, and want to believe something different for political purposes, are unaware of this.

No WMD were found. You lose.

You have the right to be ignorant and wrong.

At least everyone can see that I posted facts, compared to your non-stop partisan talking point.

But I do have to thank you for one thing. You have now identified yourself as a partisan hack, uninterested in the truth. So at least I know what kind of trash I'm talking to.

You're ignoring the fact that no WMD were found. And your links were unaccessable.

Enough partisan.... I checked all my links again, they all worked. I just the pictures, they are all accurate. You are just one of these "feelings over facts" AOC people. I could have one of the soldiers, that I know personally, come to your house and sit down with you, and show you the pictures of him removing chemical weapons, and you would still be here denying it for political purposes.

Stop wasting your time. You are not going to convince me of your lies, or anyone else for that matter. And everyone can click the links too, and see they work, and show evidence of my position. You are not fooling anyone. The only people convinced of your stupidity, are other fact-less partisan cowards like you.

Seriously, you think we invaded Iraq for that picture of shells that don't show anything except that they are really old and may or may not work? That's fucking ludicrous, brah. If the Cheney administration had found any WMD they would have paraded them down 5th Avenue. Why did we never hear of any WMD? Because your picture, even if containing mustard gas..., is LAUGHABLE!!!
And I'm a Libertarian, not a Dem. Sorry to bust that bubble as well.

So you can't argue with a single thing I said. Got it.

I already covered this. The Rockefeller report said conclusively that everything that President Bush said leading up to the Iraq war, was in fact substantiated by the intelligence data available at that time.

The White House didn't lie about Iraq

Yet Rockefeller’s highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.” Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were “substantiated by intelligence information.” The same goes for claims about Hussein’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.
​

Again... facts over your partisan hack opinion....

The fact is, at that time, the evidence we had suggested that Iraq was seeking ties with terrorist networks, and creating WMDs.

Nothing else matters. Yes, I understand that "with 20/20 hindsight we know....", but we didn't have that 20/20 hindsight in 2002-2003.
AT THAT TIME.... the evidence supported what Bush, and all the Democrats were saying, which was that we needed to deal with Iraq.

I'd ask you what you would do in that situation, but I already know you are an ignorant partisan hack. You say you are a Libertarian, but that just makes me realize why I'm not a libertarian. I'm too smart, and too educated to be a libertarian.

And lastly, we did splash the WMDs we found all over the media. I saw it back in 2004. You brainless partisan fools, simply refused to acknowledge what you don't like. Grow up.

 

[gallantwarrior]

"More than 500 Guatemalans marched through the Avenida la Reforma in Guatemala City on Thursday and protested outside the U.S. embassy against a Congressional Delegation led by Pelosi that is scheduled to arrive in the country on August 8, just three days before the nation’s second round of elections.

Protesters called for sovereignty for Guatemala against U.S. intervention, holding signs that read, “We will send you back” and “DemocRATS not welcome, this is NOT your country!”



What a bunch or 'racists' - we should stop sending them foreign aid.




Guatemalans Protest 'The Squad,' Nancy Pelosi: 'We Will Send You Back!'


.

Better yet, let's send back all their countrymen who have illegally invaded OUR country. An airdrop from a C5 should do the trick nicely.

What no parachutes?

Jo

Well, if you insist. We could do parachutes like they are rumored to live, 20 to a room. So, let's go with one parachute for every 20 of them.

 

[Taz]

No WMD were found. You lose.

You have the right to be ignorant and wrong.

At least everyone can see that I posted facts, compared to your non-stop partisan talking point.

But I do have to thank you for one thing. You have now identified yourself as a partisan hack, uninterested in the truth. So at least I know what kind of trash I'm talking to.

You're ignoring the fact that no WMD were found. And your links were unaccessable.

Enough partisan.... I checked all my links again, they all worked. I just the pictures, they are all accurate. You are just one of these "feelings over facts" AOC people. I could have one of the soldiers, that I know personally, come to your house and sit down with you, and show you the pictures of him removing chemical weapons, and you would still be here denying it for political purposes.

Stop wasting your time. You are not going to convince me of your lies, or anyone else for that matter. And everyone can click the links too, and see they work, and show evidence of my position. You are not fooling anyone. The only people convinced of your stupidity, are other fact-less partisan cowards like you.

Seriously, you think we invaded Iraq for that picture of shells that don't show anything except that they are really old and may or may not work? That's fucking ludicrous, brah. If the Cheney administration had found any WMD they would have paraded them down 5th Avenue. Why did we never hear of any WMD? Because your picture, even if containing mustard gas..., is LAUGHABLE!!!
And I'm a Libertarian, not a Dem. Sorry to bust that bubble as well.

So you can't argue with a single thing I said. Got it.

I already covered this. The Rockefeller report said conclusively that everything that President Bush said leading up to the Iraq war, was in fact substantiated by the intelligence data available at that time.

The White House didn't lie about Iraq

Yet Rockefeller’s highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.” Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were “substantiated by intelligence information.” The same goes for claims about Hussein’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.
​

Again... facts over your partisan hack opinion....

The fact is, at that time, the evidence we had suggested that Iraq was seeking ties with terrorist networks, and creating WMDs.

Nothing else matters. Yes, I understand that "with 20/20 hindsight we know....", but we didn't have that 20/20 hindsight in 2002-2003.
AT THAT TIME.... the evidence supported what Bush, and all the Democrats were saying, which was that we needed to deal with Iraq.

I'd ask you what you would do in that situation, but I already know you are an ignorant partisan hack. You say you are a Libertarian, but that just makes me realize why I'm not a libertarian. I'm too smart, and too educated to be a libertarian.

And lastly, we did splash the WMDs we found all over the media. I saw it back in 2004. You brainless partisan fools, simply refused to acknowledge what you don't like. Grow up.

No WMD were found in Iraq and my previous link to the CIA saying that it wasn't justified confirms this. You were fooled by fake intelligence, just like the rest of the GOP.

 

[Andylusion]

You have the right to be ignorant and wrong.

At least everyone can see that I posted facts, compared to your non-stop partisan talking point.

But I do have to thank you for one thing. You have now identified yourself as a partisan hack, uninterested in the truth. So at least I know what kind of trash I'm talking to.

You're ignoring the fact that no WMD were found. And your links were unaccessable.

Enough partisan.... I checked all my links again, they all worked. I just the pictures, they are all accurate. You are just one of these "feelings over facts" AOC people. I could have one of the soldiers, that I know personally, come to your house and sit down with you, and show you the pictures of him removing chemical weapons, and you would still be here denying it for political purposes.

Stop wasting your time. You are not going to convince me of your lies, or anyone else for that matter. And everyone can click the links too, and see they work, and show evidence of my position. You are not fooling anyone. The only people convinced of your stupidity, are other fact-less partisan cowards like you.

Seriously, you think we invaded Iraq for that picture of shells that don't show anything except that they are really old and may or may not work? That's fucking ludicrous, brah. If the Cheney administration had found any WMD they would have paraded them down 5th Avenue. Why did we never hear of any WMD? Because your picture, even if containing mustard gas..., is LAUGHABLE!!!
And I'm a Libertarian, not a Dem. Sorry to bust that bubble as well.

So you can't argue with a single thing I said. Got it.

I already covered this. The Rockefeller report said conclusively that everything that President Bush said leading up to the Iraq war, was in fact substantiated by the intelligence data available at that time.

The White House didn't lie about Iraq

Yet Rockefeller’s highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.” Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were “substantiated by intelligence information.” The same goes for claims about Hussein’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.
​

Again... facts over your partisan hack opinion....

The fact is, at that time, the evidence we had suggested that Iraq was seeking ties with terrorist networks, and creating WMDs.

Nothing else matters. Yes, I understand that "with 20/20 hindsight we know....", but we didn't have that 20/20 hindsight in 2002-2003.
AT THAT TIME.... the evidence supported what Bush, and all the Democrats were saying, which was that we needed to deal with Iraq.

I'd ask you what you would do in that situation, but I already know you are an ignorant partisan hack. You say you are a Libertarian, but that just makes me realize why I'm not a libertarian. I'm too smart, and too educated to be a libertarian.

And lastly, we did splash the WMDs we found all over the media. I saw it back in 2004. You brainless partisan fools, simply refused to acknowledge what you don't like. Grow up.

No WMD were found in Iraq and my previous link to the CIA saying that it wasn't justified confirms this. You were fooled by fake intelligence, just like the rest of the GOP.

Now this is amusing. Did you read your own link? No you did not. The link bases the entire article on a report by the RAND corporation.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR768/RAND_RR768.pdf

Page 161.

President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq on March 20, 2003, was not a blunder on the scale of those of Napoleon, Hitler, and Tojo.1 There was a case to be made on several grounds for operations against Saddam Hussein. The initial phase of combat was highly successful, and some still argue that the American investment was worth the cost of toppling the Saddam regime.​

Funny how you people cherry pick what you want to believe out of a larger report, and pretend what you care about is the only thing that was said.

Saddam had shown himself for the ruthless villain he was. He had used chemical weapons against his own people and against Iranian troops in the 1980s. He had invaded Kuwait and started a bloody war against Iran. He perpetually threatened Israel. He refused to implement at least ten UN Security Council resolutions aimed at ending his WMD programs and had expelled weapons inspectors in 1998.
​

All true, and was part of the basis for having him removed. Funny how this 'smoking gun' report against the invasion seems to be laying out all the clear and correct justifications for it.

In the aftermath of September 11, the CIA began to highlight Saddam’s WMD capabilities. The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, revealed eight ways that Saddam might develop a nuclear capability and called the WMD case against Saddam a “slam dunk.”14 The CIA had missed several indications that might have given specific warning about the September 11 attack and was not about to be caught off guard again.15 Because the Bush administration had not acted on more-general intelligence warnings of the al Qaeda threat to the U.S. homeland, it would take any future warning much more seriously.
​

Also all true. The Administration had missed general warnings about Al Queda, that were nearly identical to the warnings about Saddam. Again, it's way too easy for brainless pot smokers 20 years later, to say with what is now historical hindsight, that Bush should have acted differently.

Intelligence reports indicated, wrongly it turned out, that Saddam had weaponized anthrax, although he was not suspected of initiating these particular attacks. Also, the CIA received reports that Osama bin Laden was seeking “dirty” (i.e., radiological) bomb capability, possibly from Pakistan.
​

Also all true. There were reports that Saddam had weaponized anthrax, and that Osama was looking for a dirty bomb. Again, we NOW know that those reports were wrong, but we had no way of knowing that at the time.

The case for his possession of WMDs appeared stronger and drove decision making. After all, he had used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds in the 1980s. But the intelligence was wrong. Iraq had gotten rid of its WMDs.

The United States had no reliable intelligence assets in Iraq. International WMD inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq since 1998; so in that sense Saddam brought this about himself.​

Again, all of this is entirely true. The entire point of the UN inspection team, was to verify that Saddam had in fact gotten rid of, and destroyed is WMDs. If he had no kicked them out, and if he had allowed them to document the destruction and removal of the WMDs, there never would have been an Iraq war.

The NIE was delivered in October 2002 and was considered by many as a war-rant for going to war. It concluded, with caveats, that the Iraqis possessed chemical and biological weapons along with delivery systems and sought to reconstitute their nuclear program.
​

Wow, so the report that they had.... AT THAT TIME.... said they had chemical and biological weapons, and they were trying to reconstitute their nuclear program? Which is kind of what I've been saying since the start of the discussion.

on November 8 passed UN Security Council Resolution 1441 by a vote of fifteen to zero. The resolution, backed by American intelligence, declared Iraq to be in “material breach of cease fire terms” and gave Saddam a “final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.”​

Yes, again, the UN itself repeatedly said Iraq was in violation of the UN.

The inspectors were unable to find any WMDs. But Blix reported to the UN on January 27 that Baghdad had not been forthcoming enough in its declarations.​

Right, I actually remember this happening. Blix said openly that yeah, they had not found any WMDs yet, but that Iraq had refused to declare where they were, what was done, and show evidence of their destruction.

Again, we knew he had them. There was no question he had them. He had to have them, because he had used them. So where were they? Where was the proof of their destruction?

So.... from your own link (and I could quote more of this, but I think I made the point), your own link shows exactly why we went into Iraq.

Yes, some of the evidence used to justify the invasion was incorrect. But we only found that out in retrospect. Again, hindsight is 20/20. We didn't have hindsight in 2003.

Once again, the evidence is on my side. No go back to smoking your pot, and stay there.

 

[Taz]

You're ignoring the fact that no WMD were found. And your links were unaccessable.

Enough partisan.... I checked all my links again, they all worked. I just the pictures, they are all accurate. You are just one of these "feelings over facts" AOC people. I could have one of the soldiers, that I know personally, come to your house and sit down with you, and show you the pictures of him removing chemical weapons, and you would still be here denying it for political purposes.

Stop wasting your time. You are not going to convince me of your lies, or anyone else for that matter. And everyone can click the links too, and see they work, and show evidence of my position. You are not fooling anyone. The only people convinced of your stupidity, are other fact-less partisan cowards like you.

Seriously, you think we invaded Iraq for that picture of shells that don't show anything except that they are really old and may or may not work? That's fucking ludicrous, brah. If the Cheney administration had found any WMD they would have paraded them down 5th Avenue. Why did we never hear of any WMD? Because your picture, even if containing mustard gas..., is LAUGHABLE!!!
And I'm a Libertarian, not a Dem. Sorry to bust that bubble as well.

So you can't argue with a single thing I said. Got it.

I already covered this. The Rockefeller report said conclusively that everything that President Bush said leading up to the Iraq war, was in fact substantiated by the intelligence data available at that time.

The White House didn't lie about Iraq

Yet Rockefeller’s highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.” Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were “substantiated by intelligence information.” The same goes for claims about Hussein’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.
​

Again... facts over your partisan hack opinion....

The fact is, at that time, the evidence we had suggested that Iraq was seeking ties with terrorist networks, and creating WMDs.

Nothing else matters. Yes, I understand that "with 20/20 hindsight we know....", but we didn't have that 20/20 hindsight in 2002-2003.
AT THAT TIME.... the evidence supported what Bush, and all the Democrats were saying, which was that we needed to deal with Iraq.

I'd ask you what you would do in that situation, but I already know you are an ignorant partisan hack. You say you are a Libertarian, but that just makes me realize why I'm not a libertarian. I'm too smart, and too educated to be a libertarian.

And lastly, we did splash the WMDs we found all over the media. I saw it back in 2004. You brainless partisan fools, simply refused to acknowledge what you don't like. Grow up.

No WMD were found in Iraq and my previous link to the CIA saying that it wasn't justified confirms this. You were fooled by fake intelligence, just like the rest of the GOP.

Now this is amusing. Did you read your own link? No you did not. The link bases the entire article on a report by the RAND corporation.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR768/RAND_RR768.pdf

Page 161.

President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq on March 20, 2003, was not a blunder on the scale of those of Napoleon, Hitler, and Tojo.1 There was a case to be made on several grounds for operations against Saddam Hussein. The initial phase of combat was highly successful, and some still argue that the American investment was worth the cost of toppling the Saddam regime.​

Funny how you people cherry pick what you want to believe out of a larger report, and pretend what you care about is the only thing that was said.

Saddam had shown himself for the ruthless villain he was. He had used chemical weapons against his own people and against Iranian troops in the 1980s. He had invaded Kuwait and started a bloody war against Iran. He perpetually threatened Israel. He refused to implement at least ten UN Security Council resolutions aimed at ending his WMD programs and had expelled weapons inspectors in 1998.
​

All true, and was part of the basis for having him removed. Funny how this 'smoking gun' report against the invasion seems to be laying out all the clear and correct justifications for it.

In the aftermath of September 11, the CIA began to highlight Saddam’s WMD capabilities. The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, revealed eight ways that Saddam might develop a nuclear capability and called the WMD case against Saddam a “slam dunk.”14 The CIA had missed several indications that might have given specific warning about the September 11 attack and was not about to be caught off guard again.15 Because the Bush administration had not acted on more-general intelligence warnings of the al Qaeda threat to the U.S. homeland, it would take any future warning much more seriously.
​

Also all true. The Administration had missed general warnings about Al Queda, that were nearly identical to the warnings about Saddam. Again, it's way too easy for brainless pot smokers 20 years later, to say with what is now historical hindsight, that Bush should have acted differently.

Intelligence reports indicated, wrongly it turned out, that Saddam had weaponized anthrax, although he was not suspected of initiating these particular attacks. Also, the CIA received reports that Osama bin Laden was seeking “dirty” (i.e., radiological) bomb capability, possibly from Pakistan.
​

Also all true. There were reports that Saddam had weaponized anthrax, and that Osama was looking for a dirty bomb. Again, we NOW know that those reports were wrong, but we had no way of knowing that at the time.

The case for his possession of WMDs appeared stronger and drove decision making. After all, he had used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds in the 1980s. But the intelligence was wrong. Iraq had gotten rid of its WMDs.

The United States had no reliable intelligence assets in Iraq. International WMD inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq since 1998; so in that sense Saddam brought this about himself.​

Again, all of this is entirely true. The entire point of the UN inspection team, was to verify that Saddam had in fact gotten rid of, and destroyed is WMDs. If he had no kicked them out, and if he had allowed them to document the destruction and removal of the WMDs, there never would have been an Iraq war.

The NIE was delivered in October 2002 and was considered by many as a war-rant for going to war. It concluded, with caveats, that the Iraqis possessed chemical and biological weapons along with delivery systems and sought to reconstitute their nuclear program.
​

Wow, so the report that they had.... AT THAT TIME.... said they had chemical and biological weapons, and they were trying to reconstitute their nuclear program? Which is kind of what I've been saying since the start of the discussion.

on November 8 passed UN Security Council Resolution 1441 by a vote of fifteen to zero. The resolution, backed by American intelligence, declared Iraq to be in “material breach of cease fire terms” and gave Saddam a “final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.”​

Yes, again, the UN itself repeatedly said Iraq was in violation of the UN.

The inspectors were unable to find any WMDs. But Blix reported to the UN on January 27 that Baghdad had not been forthcoming enough in its declarations.​

Right, I actually remember this happening. Blix said openly that yeah, they had not found any WMDs yet, but that Iraq had refused to declare where they were, what was done, and show evidence of their destruction.

Again, we knew he had them. There was no question he had them. He had to have them, because he had used them. So where were they? Where was the proof of their destruction?

So.... from your own link (and I could quote more of this, but I think I made the point), your own link shows exactly why we went into Iraq.

Yes, some of the evidence used to justify the invasion was incorrect. But we only found that out in retrospect. Again, hindsight is 20/20. We didn't have hindsight in 2003.

Once again, the evidence is on my side. No go back to smoking your pot, and stay there.

The CIA said no justification. You lose, princess.

 

[Andylusion]

Enough partisan.... I checked all my links again, they all worked. I just the pictures, they are all accurate. You are just one of these "feelings over facts" AOC people. I could have one of the soldiers, that I know personally, come to your house and sit down with you, and show you the pictures of him removing chemical weapons, and you would still be here denying it for political purposes.

Stop wasting your time. You are not going to convince me of your lies, or anyone else for that matter. And everyone can click the links too, and see they work, and show evidence of my position. You are not fooling anyone. The only people convinced of your stupidity, are other fact-less partisan cowards like you.

Seriously, you think we invaded Iraq for that picture of shells that don't show anything except that they are really old and may or may not work? That's fucking ludicrous, brah. If the Cheney administration had found any WMD they would have paraded them down 5th Avenue. Why did we never hear of any WMD? Because your picture, even if containing mustard gas..., is LAUGHABLE!!!
And I'm a Libertarian, not a Dem. Sorry to bust that bubble as well.

So you can't argue with a single thing I said. Got it.

I already covered this. The Rockefeller report said conclusively that everything that President Bush said leading up to the Iraq war, was in fact substantiated by the intelligence data available at that time.

The White House didn't lie about Iraq

Yet Rockefeller’s highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.” Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were “substantiated by intelligence information.” The same goes for claims about Hussein’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.
​

Again... facts over your partisan hack opinion....

The fact is, at that time, the evidence we had suggested that Iraq was seeking ties with terrorist networks, and creating WMDs.

Nothing else matters. Yes, I understand that "with 20/20 hindsight we know....", but we didn't have that 20/20 hindsight in 2002-2003.
AT THAT TIME.... the evidence supported what Bush, and all the Democrats were saying, which was that we needed to deal with Iraq.

I'd ask you what you would do in that situation, but I already know you are an ignorant partisan hack. You say you are a Libertarian, but that just makes me realize why I'm not a libertarian. I'm too smart, and too educated to be a libertarian.

And lastly, we did splash the WMDs we found all over the media. I saw it back in 2004. You brainless partisan fools, simply refused to acknowledge what you don't like. Grow up.

No WMD were found in Iraq and my previous link to the CIA saying that it wasn't justified confirms this. You were fooled by fake intelligence, just like the rest of the GOP.

Now this is amusing. Did you read your own link? No you did not. The link bases the entire article on a report by the RAND corporation.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR768/RAND_RR768.pdf

Page 161.

President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq on March 20, 2003, was not a blunder on the scale of those of Napoleon, Hitler, and Tojo.1 There was a case to be made on several grounds for operations against Saddam Hussein. The initial phase of combat was highly successful, and some still argue that the American investment was worth the cost of toppling the Saddam regime.​

Funny how you people cherry pick what you want to believe out of a larger report, and pretend what you care about is the only thing that was said.

Saddam had shown himself for the ruthless villain he was. He had used chemical weapons against his own people and against Iranian troops in the 1980s. He had invaded Kuwait and started a bloody war against Iran. He perpetually threatened Israel. He refused to implement at least ten UN Security Council resolutions aimed at ending his WMD programs and had expelled weapons inspectors in 1998.
​

All true, and was part of the basis for having him removed. Funny how this 'smoking gun' report against the invasion seems to be laying out all the clear and correct justifications for it.

In the aftermath of September 11, the CIA began to highlight Saddam’s WMD capabilities. The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, revealed eight ways that Saddam might develop a nuclear capability and called the WMD case against Saddam a “slam dunk.”14 The CIA had missed several indications that might have given specific warning about the September 11 attack and was not about to be caught off guard again.15 Because the Bush administration had not acted on more-general intelligence warnings of the al Qaeda threat to the U.S. homeland, it would take any future warning much more seriously.
​

Also all true. The Administration had missed general warnings about Al Queda, that were nearly identical to the warnings about Saddam. Again, it's way too easy for brainless pot smokers 20 years later, to say with what is now historical hindsight, that Bush should have acted differently.

Intelligence reports indicated, wrongly it turned out, that Saddam had weaponized anthrax, although he was not suspected of initiating these particular attacks. Also, the CIA received reports that Osama bin Laden was seeking “dirty” (i.e., radiological) bomb capability, possibly from Pakistan.
​

Also all true. There were reports that Saddam had weaponized anthrax, and that Osama was looking for a dirty bomb. Again, we NOW know that those reports were wrong, but we had no way of knowing that at the time.

The case for his possession of WMDs appeared stronger and drove decision making. After all, he had used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds in the 1980s. But the intelligence was wrong. Iraq had gotten rid of its WMDs.

The United States had no reliable intelligence assets in Iraq. International WMD inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq since 1998; so in that sense Saddam brought this about himself.​

Again, all of this is entirely true. The entire point of the UN inspection team, was to verify that Saddam had in fact gotten rid of, and destroyed is WMDs. If he had no kicked them out, and if he had allowed them to document the destruction and removal of the WMDs, there never would have been an Iraq war.

The NIE was delivered in October 2002 and was considered by many as a war-rant for going to war. It concluded, with caveats, that the Iraqis possessed chemical and biological weapons along with delivery systems and sought to reconstitute their nuclear program.
​

Wow, so the report that they had.... AT THAT TIME.... said they had chemical and biological weapons, and they were trying to reconstitute their nuclear program? Which is kind of what I've been saying since the start of the discussion.

on November 8 passed UN Security Council Resolution 1441 by a vote of fifteen to zero. The resolution, backed by American intelligence, declared Iraq to be in “material breach of cease fire terms” and gave Saddam a “final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.”​

Yes, again, the UN itself repeatedly said Iraq was in violation of the UN.

The inspectors were unable to find any WMDs. But Blix reported to the UN on January 27 that Baghdad had not been forthcoming enough in its declarations.​

Right, I actually remember this happening. Blix said openly that yeah, they had not found any WMDs yet, but that Iraq had refused to declare where they were, what was done, and show evidence of their destruction.

Again, we knew he had them. There was no question he had them. He had to have them, because he had used them. So where were they? Where was the proof of their destruction?

So.... from your own link (and I could quote more of this, but I think I made the point), your own link shows exactly why we went into Iraq.

Yes, some of the evidence used to justify the invasion was incorrect. But we only found that out in retrospect. Again, hindsight is 20/20. We didn't have hindsight in 2003.

Once again, the evidence is on my side. No go back to smoking your pot, and stay there.

The CIA said no justification. You lose, princess.

So now, you are not even going to read your own report, look at the facts of this issue, and instead are just going to repeat your talking point.

Got it. This is why libertarians will never be anything than a pot-smoker joke in the realm of ideology. I'd say you make all the other libertarians look bad, but they are all just a stupid as you.

 

[Taz]

Seriously, you think we invaded Iraq for that picture of shells that don't show anything except that they are really old and may or may not work? That's fucking ludicrous, brah. If the Cheney administration had found any WMD they would have paraded them down 5th Avenue. Why did we never hear of any WMD? Because your picture, even if containing mustard gas..., is LAUGHABLE!!!
And I'm a Libertarian, not a Dem. Sorry to bust that bubble as well.

So you can't argue with a single thing I said. Got it.

I already covered this. The Rockefeller report said conclusively that everything that President Bush said leading up to the Iraq war, was in fact substantiated by the intelligence data available at that time.

The White House didn't lie about Iraq

Yet Rockefeller’s highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.” Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were “substantiated by intelligence information.” The same goes for claims about Hussein’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.
​

Again... facts over your partisan hack opinion....

The fact is, at that time, the evidence we had suggested that Iraq was seeking ties with terrorist networks, and creating WMDs.

Nothing else matters. Yes, I understand that "with 20/20 hindsight we know....", but we didn't have that 20/20 hindsight in 2002-2003.
AT THAT TIME.... the evidence supported what Bush, and all the Democrats were saying, which was that we needed to deal with Iraq.

I'd ask you what you would do in that situation, but I already know you are an ignorant partisan hack. You say you are a Libertarian, but that just makes me realize why I'm not a libertarian. I'm too smart, and too educated to be a libertarian.

And lastly, we did splash the WMDs we found all over the media. I saw it back in 2004. You brainless partisan fools, simply refused to acknowledge what you don't like. Grow up.

No WMD were found in Iraq and my previous link to the CIA saying that it wasn't justified confirms this. You were fooled by fake intelligence, just like the rest of the GOP.

Now this is amusing. Did you read your own link? No you did not. The link bases the entire article on a report by the RAND corporation.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR768/RAND_RR768.pdf

Page 161.

President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq on March 20, 2003, was not a blunder on the scale of those of Napoleon, Hitler, and Tojo.1 There was a case to be made on several grounds for operations against Saddam Hussein. The initial phase of combat was highly successful, and some still argue that the American investment was worth the cost of toppling the Saddam regime.​

Funny how you people cherry pick what you want to believe out of a larger report, and pretend what you care about is the only thing that was said.

Saddam had shown himself for the ruthless villain he was. He had used chemical weapons against his own people and against Iranian troops in the 1980s. He had invaded Kuwait and started a bloody war against Iran. He perpetually threatened Israel. He refused to implement at least ten UN Security Council resolutions aimed at ending his WMD programs and had expelled weapons inspectors in 1998.
​

All true, and was part of the basis for having him removed. Funny how this 'smoking gun' report against the invasion seems to be laying out all the clear and correct justifications for it.

In the aftermath of September 11, the CIA began to highlight Saddam’s WMD capabilities. The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, revealed eight ways that Saddam might develop a nuclear capability and called the WMD case against Saddam a “slam dunk.”14 The CIA had missed several indications that might have given specific warning about the September 11 attack and was not about to be caught off guard again.15 Because the Bush administration had not acted on more-general intelligence warnings of the al Qaeda threat to the U.S. homeland, it would take any future warning much more seriously.
​

Also all true. The Administration had missed general warnings about Al Queda, that were nearly identical to the warnings about Saddam. Again, it's way too easy for brainless pot smokers 20 years later, to say with what is now historical hindsight, that Bush should have acted differently.

Intelligence reports indicated, wrongly it turned out, that Saddam had weaponized anthrax, although he was not suspected of initiating these particular attacks. Also, the CIA received reports that Osama bin Laden was seeking “dirty” (i.e., radiological) bomb capability, possibly from Pakistan.
​

Also all true. There were reports that Saddam had weaponized anthrax, and that Osama was looking for a dirty bomb. Again, we NOW know that those reports were wrong, but we had no way of knowing that at the time.

The case for his possession of WMDs appeared stronger and drove decision making. After all, he had used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds in the 1980s. But the intelligence was wrong. Iraq had gotten rid of its WMDs.

The United States had no reliable intelligence assets in Iraq. International WMD inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq since 1998; so in that sense Saddam brought this about himself.​

Again, all of this is entirely true. The entire point of the UN inspection team, was to verify that Saddam had in fact gotten rid of, and destroyed is WMDs. If he had no kicked them out, and if he had allowed them to document the destruction and removal of the WMDs, there never would have been an Iraq war.

The NIE was delivered in October 2002 and was considered by many as a war-rant for going to war. It concluded, with caveats, that the Iraqis possessed chemical and biological weapons along with delivery systems and sought to reconstitute their nuclear program.
​

Wow, so the report that they had.... AT THAT TIME.... said they had chemical and biological weapons, and they were trying to reconstitute their nuclear program? Which is kind of what I've been saying since the start of the discussion.

on November 8 passed UN Security Council Resolution 1441 by a vote of fifteen to zero. The resolution, backed by American intelligence, declared Iraq to be in “material breach of cease fire terms” and gave Saddam a “final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.”​

Yes, again, the UN itself repeatedly said Iraq was in violation of the UN.

The inspectors were unable to find any WMDs. But Blix reported to the UN on January 27 that Baghdad had not been forthcoming enough in its declarations.​

Right, I actually remember this happening. Blix said openly that yeah, they had not found any WMDs yet, but that Iraq had refused to declare where they were, what was done, and show evidence of their destruction.

Again, we knew he had them. There was no question he had them. He had to have them, because he had used them. So where were they? Where was the proof of their destruction?

So.... from your own link (and I could quote more of this, but I think I made the point), your own link shows exactly why we went into Iraq.

Yes, some of the evidence used to justify the invasion was incorrect. But we only found that out in retrospect. Again, hindsight is 20/20. We didn't have hindsight in 2003.

Once again, the evidence is on my side. No go back to smoking your pot, and stay there.

The CIA said no justification. You lose, princess.

So now, you are not even going to read your own report, look at the facts of this issue, and instead are just going to repeat your talking point.

Got it. This is why libertarians will never be anything than a pot-smoker joke in the realm of ideology. I'd say you make all the other libertarians look bad, but they are all just a stupid as you.

You've shown nothing except a bunch of ancient warheads that don't look like they were usable. You're a gullible partisan hack who will believe anything you're told. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 nor did he have a working WMD program. Numpty.

 

[jknowgood]

We should nuke Guatemala.

Why your party is begging them to come here, with free stuff!

 

[Taz]

We should nuke Guatemala.

Why your party is begging them to come here, with free stuff!

Not my party. Please try again.

 

[Andylusion]

So you can't argue with a single thing I said. Got it.

I already covered this. The Rockefeller report said conclusively that everything that President Bush said leading up to the Iraq war, was in fact substantiated by the intelligence data available at that time.

The White House didn't lie about Iraq

Yet Rockefeller’s highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.” Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were “substantiated by intelligence information.” The same goes for claims about Hussein’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.
​

Again... facts over your partisan hack opinion....

The fact is, at that time, the evidence we had suggested that Iraq was seeking ties with terrorist networks, and creating WMDs.

Nothing else matters. Yes, I understand that "with 20/20 hindsight we know....", but we didn't have that 20/20 hindsight in 2002-2003.
AT THAT TIME.... the evidence supported what Bush, and all the Democrats were saying, which was that we needed to deal with Iraq.

I'd ask you what you would do in that situation, but I already know you are an ignorant partisan hack. You say you are a Libertarian, but that just makes me realize why I'm not a libertarian. I'm too smart, and too educated to be a libertarian.

And lastly, we did splash the WMDs we found all over the media. I saw it back in 2004. You brainless partisan fools, simply refused to acknowledge what you don't like. Grow up.

No WMD were found in Iraq and my previous link to the CIA saying that it wasn't justified confirms this. You were fooled by fake intelligence, just like the rest of the GOP.

Now this is amusing. Did you read your own link? No you did not. The link bases the entire article on a report by the RAND corporation.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR768/RAND_RR768.pdf

Page 161.

President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq on March 20, 2003, was not a blunder on the scale of those of Napoleon, Hitler, and Tojo.1 There was a case to be made on several grounds for operations against Saddam Hussein. The initial phase of combat was highly successful, and some still argue that the American investment was worth the cost of toppling the Saddam regime.​

Funny how you people cherry pick what you want to believe out of a larger report, and pretend what you care about is the only thing that was said.

Saddam had shown himself for the ruthless villain he was. He had used chemical weapons against his own people and against Iranian troops in the 1980s. He had invaded Kuwait and started a bloody war against Iran. He perpetually threatened Israel. He refused to implement at least ten UN Security Council resolutions aimed at ending his WMD programs and had expelled weapons inspectors in 1998.
​

All true, and was part of the basis for having him removed. Funny how this 'smoking gun' report against the invasion seems to be laying out all the clear and correct justifications for it.

In the aftermath of September 11, the CIA began to highlight Saddam’s WMD capabilities. The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, revealed eight ways that Saddam might develop a nuclear capability and called the WMD case against Saddam a “slam dunk.”14 The CIA had missed several indications that might have given specific warning about the September 11 attack and was not about to be caught off guard again.15 Because the Bush administration had not acted on more-general intelligence warnings of the al Qaeda threat to the U.S. homeland, it would take any future warning much more seriously.
​

Also all true. The Administration had missed general warnings about Al Queda, that were nearly identical to the warnings about Saddam. Again, it's way too easy for brainless pot smokers 20 years later, to say with what is now historical hindsight, that Bush should have acted differently.

Intelligence reports indicated, wrongly it turned out, that Saddam had weaponized anthrax, although he was not suspected of initiating these particular attacks. Also, the CIA received reports that Osama bin Laden was seeking “dirty” (i.e., radiological) bomb capability, possibly from Pakistan.
​

Also all true. There were reports that Saddam had weaponized anthrax, and that Osama was looking for a dirty bomb. Again, we NOW know that those reports were wrong, but we had no way of knowing that at the time.

The case for his possession of WMDs appeared stronger and drove decision making. After all, he had used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds in the 1980s. But the intelligence was wrong. Iraq had gotten rid of its WMDs.

The United States had no reliable intelligence assets in Iraq. International WMD inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq since 1998; so in that sense Saddam brought this about himself.​

Again, all of this is entirely true. The entire point of the UN inspection team, was to verify that Saddam had in fact gotten rid of, and destroyed is WMDs. If he had no kicked them out, and if he had allowed them to document the destruction and removal of the WMDs, there never would have been an Iraq war.

The NIE was delivered in October 2002 and was considered by many as a war-rant for going to war. It concluded, with caveats, that the Iraqis possessed chemical and biological weapons along with delivery systems and sought to reconstitute their nuclear program.
​

Wow, so the report that they had.... AT THAT TIME.... said they had chemical and biological weapons, and they were trying to reconstitute their nuclear program? Which is kind of what I've been saying since the start of the discussion.

on November 8 passed UN Security Council Resolution 1441 by a vote of fifteen to zero. The resolution, backed by American intelligence, declared Iraq to be in “material breach of cease fire terms” and gave Saddam a “final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.”​

Yes, again, the UN itself repeatedly said Iraq was in violation of the UN.

The inspectors were unable to find any WMDs. But Blix reported to the UN on January 27 that Baghdad had not been forthcoming enough in its declarations.​

Right, I actually remember this happening. Blix said openly that yeah, they had not found any WMDs yet, but that Iraq had refused to declare where they were, what was done, and show evidence of their destruction.

Again, we knew he had them. There was no question he had them. He had to have them, because he had used them. So where were they? Where was the proof of their destruction?

So.... from your own link (and I could quote more of this, but I think I made the point), your own link shows exactly why we went into Iraq.

Yes, some of the evidence used to justify the invasion was incorrect. But we only found that out in retrospect. Again, hindsight is 20/20. We didn't have hindsight in 2003.

Once again, the evidence is on my side. No go back to smoking your pot, and stay there.

The CIA said no justification. You lose, princess.

So now, you are not even going to read your own report, look at the facts of this issue, and instead are just going to repeat your talking point.

Got it. This is why libertarians will never be anything than a pot-smoker joke in the realm of ideology. I'd say you make all the other libertarians look bad, but they are all just a stupid as you.

You've shown nothing except a bunch of ancient warheads that don't look like they were usable. You're a gullible partisan hack who will believe anything you're told. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 nor did he have a working WMD program. Numpty.

I never said that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Typical libertarian, can't even argue his case, so he has to make up something unrelated, and pretend the other person said it.

Whether the warheads were old or new, whether they worked, or didn't, none of that is relevant.

According to the UN resolution, Saddam was required to destroy chemical and biological weapons, and provide that proof of their destruction to the UN inspectors.

Those are the facts, which your own link provided evidence of. Stupid libertarian, can't even understand the simplest of argument. Go back to your pot smoking.

 

[Taz]

No WMD were found in Iraq and my previous link to the CIA saying that it wasn't justified confirms this. You were fooled by fake intelligence, just like the rest of the GOP.

Now this is amusing. Did you read your own link? No you did not. The link bases the entire article on a report by the RAND corporation.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR768/RAND_RR768.pdf

Page 161.

President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq on March 20, 2003, was not a blunder on the scale of those of Napoleon, Hitler, and Tojo.1 There was a case to be made on several grounds for operations against Saddam Hussein. The initial phase of combat was highly successful, and some still argue that the American investment was worth the cost of toppling the Saddam regime.​

Funny how you people cherry pick what you want to believe out of a larger report, and pretend what you care about is the only thing that was said.

Saddam had shown himself for the ruthless villain he was. He had used chemical weapons against his own people and against Iranian troops in the 1980s. He had invaded Kuwait and started a bloody war against Iran. He perpetually threatened Israel. He refused to implement at least ten UN Security Council resolutions aimed at ending his WMD programs and had expelled weapons inspectors in 1998.
​

All true, and was part of the basis for having him removed. Funny how this 'smoking gun' report against the invasion seems to be laying out all the clear and correct justifications for it.

In the aftermath of September 11, the CIA began to highlight Saddam’s WMD capabilities. The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, revealed eight ways that Saddam might develop a nuclear capability and called the WMD case against Saddam a “slam dunk.”14 The CIA had missed several indications that might have given specific warning about the September 11 attack and was not about to be caught off guard again.15 Because the Bush administration had not acted on more-general intelligence warnings of the al Qaeda threat to the U.S. homeland, it would take any future warning much more seriously.
​

Also all true. The Administration had missed general warnings about Al Queda, that were nearly identical to the warnings about Saddam. Again, it's way too easy for brainless pot smokers 20 years later, to say with what is now historical hindsight, that Bush should have acted differently.

Intelligence reports indicated, wrongly it turned out, that Saddam had weaponized anthrax, although he was not suspected of initiating these particular attacks. Also, the CIA received reports that Osama bin Laden was seeking “dirty” (i.e., radiological) bomb capability, possibly from Pakistan.
​

Also all true. There were reports that Saddam had weaponized anthrax, and that Osama was looking for a dirty bomb. Again, we NOW know that those reports were wrong, but we had no way of knowing that at the time.

The case for his possession of WMDs appeared stronger and drove decision making. After all, he had used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds in the 1980s. But the intelligence was wrong. Iraq had gotten rid of its WMDs.

The United States had no reliable intelligence assets in Iraq. International WMD inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq since 1998; so in that sense Saddam brought this about himself.​

Again, all of this is entirely true. The entire point of the UN inspection team, was to verify that Saddam had in fact gotten rid of, and destroyed is WMDs. If he had no kicked them out, and if he had allowed them to document the destruction and removal of the WMDs, there never would have been an Iraq war.

The NIE was delivered in October 2002 and was considered by many as a war-rant for going to war. It concluded, with caveats, that the Iraqis possessed chemical and biological weapons along with delivery systems and sought to reconstitute their nuclear program.
​

Wow, so the report that they had.... AT THAT TIME.... said they had chemical and biological weapons, and they were trying to reconstitute their nuclear program? Which is kind of what I've been saying since the start of the discussion.

on November 8 passed UN Security Council Resolution 1441 by a vote of fifteen to zero. The resolution, backed by American intelligence, declared Iraq to be in “material breach of cease fire terms” and gave Saddam a “final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.”​

Yes, again, the UN itself repeatedly said Iraq was in violation of the UN.

The inspectors were unable to find any WMDs. But Blix reported to the UN on January 27 that Baghdad had not been forthcoming enough in its declarations.​

Right, I actually remember this happening. Blix said openly that yeah, they had not found any WMDs yet, but that Iraq had refused to declare where they were, what was done, and show evidence of their destruction.

Again, we knew he had them. There was no question he had them. He had to have them, because he had used them. So where were they? Where was the proof of their destruction?

So.... from your own link (and I could quote more of this, but I think I made the point), your own link shows exactly why we went into Iraq.

Yes, some of the evidence used to justify the invasion was incorrect. But we only found that out in retrospect. Again, hindsight is 20/20. We didn't have hindsight in 2003.

Once again, the evidence is on my side. No go back to smoking your pot, and stay there.

The CIA said no justification. You lose, princess.

So now, you are not even going to read your own report, look at the facts of this issue, and instead are just going to repeat your talking point.

Got it. This is why libertarians will never be anything than a pot-smoker joke in the realm of ideology. I'd say you make all the other libertarians look bad, but they are all just a stupid as you.

You've shown nothing except a bunch of ancient warheads that don't look like they were usable. You're a gullible partisan hack who will believe anything you're told. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 nor did he have a working WMD program. Numpty.

I never said that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Typical libertarian, can't even argue his case, so he has to make up something unrelated, and pretend the other person said it.

Whether the warheads were old or new, whether they worked, or didn't, none of that is relevant.

According to the UN resolution, Saddam was required to destroy chemical and biological weapons, and provide that proof of their destruction to the UN inspectors.

Those are the facts, which your own link provided evidence of. Stupid libertarian, can't even understand the simplest of argument. Go back to your pot smoking.

So after 9/11, instead of going after the people responsible, we invade Iraq because of some vague threat that the UN had already been inspecting and dismissed? Um... no.

 

[Andylusion]

Now this is amusing. Did you read your own link? No you did not. The link bases the entire article on a report by the RAND corporation.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR768/RAND_RR768.pdf

Page 161.

President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq on March 20, 2003, was not a blunder on the scale of those of Napoleon, Hitler, and Tojo.1 There was a case to be made on several grounds for operations against Saddam Hussein. The initial phase of combat was highly successful, and some still argue that the American investment was worth the cost of toppling the Saddam regime.​

Funny how you people cherry pick what you want to believe out of a larger report, and pretend what you care about is the only thing that was said.

Saddam had shown himself for the ruthless villain he was. He had used chemical weapons against his own people and against Iranian troops in the 1980s. He had invaded Kuwait and started a bloody war against Iran. He perpetually threatened Israel. He refused to implement at least ten UN Security Council resolutions aimed at ending his WMD programs and had expelled weapons inspectors in 1998.
​

All true, and was part of the basis for having him removed. Funny how this 'smoking gun' report against the invasion seems to be laying out all the clear and correct justifications for it.

In the aftermath of September 11, the CIA began to highlight Saddam’s WMD capabilities. The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, revealed eight ways that Saddam might develop a nuclear capability and called the WMD case against Saddam a “slam dunk.”14 The CIA had missed several indications that might have given specific warning about the September 11 attack and was not about to be caught off guard again.15 Because the Bush administration had not acted on more-general intelligence warnings of the al Qaeda threat to the U.S. homeland, it would take any future warning much more seriously.
​

Also all true. The Administration had missed general warnings about Al Queda, that were nearly identical to the warnings about Saddam. Again, it's way too easy for brainless pot smokers 20 years later, to say with what is now historical hindsight, that Bush should have acted differently.

Intelligence reports indicated, wrongly it turned out, that Saddam had weaponized anthrax, although he was not suspected of initiating these particular attacks. Also, the CIA received reports that Osama bin Laden was seeking “dirty” (i.e., radiological) bomb capability, possibly from Pakistan.
​

Also all true. There were reports that Saddam had weaponized anthrax, and that Osama was looking for a dirty bomb. Again, we NOW know that those reports were wrong, but we had no way of knowing that at the time.

The case for his possession of WMDs appeared stronger and drove decision making. After all, he had used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds in the 1980s. But the intelligence was wrong. Iraq had gotten rid of its WMDs.

The United States had no reliable intelligence assets in Iraq. International WMD inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq since 1998; so in that sense Saddam brought this about himself.​

Again, all of this is entirely true. The entire point of the UN inspection team, was to verify that Saddam had in fact gotten rid of, and destroyed is WMDs. If he had no kicked them out, and if he had allowed them to document the destruction and removal of the WMDs, there never would have been an Iraq war.

The NIE was delivered in October 2002 and was considered by many as a war-rant for going to war. It concluded, with caveats, that the Iraqis possessed chemical and biological weapons along with delivery systems and sought to reconstitute their nuclear program.
​

Wow, so the report that they had.... AT THAT TIME.... said they had chemical and biological weapons, and they were trying to reconstitute their nuclear program? Which is kind of what I've been saying since the start of the discussion.

on November 8 passed UN Security Council Resolution 1441 by a vote of fifteen to zero. The resolution, backed by American intelligence, declared Iraq to be in “material breach of cease fire terms” and gave Saddam a “final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.”​

Yes, again, the UN itself repeatedly said Iraq was in violation of the UN.

The inspectors were unable to find any WMDs. But Blix reported to the UN on January 27 that Baghdad had not been forthcoming enough in its declarations.​

Right, I actually remember this happening. Blix said openly that yeah, they had not found any WMDs yet, but that Iraq had refused to declare where they were, what was done, and show evidence of their destruction.

Again, we knew he had them. There was no question he had them. He had to have them, because he had used them. So where were they? Where was the proof of their destruction?

So.... from your own link (and I could quote more of this, but I think I made the point), your own link shows exactly why we went into Iraq.

Yes, some of the evidence used to justify the invasion was incorrect. But we only found that out in retrospect. Again, hindsight is 20/20. We didn't have hindsight in 2003.

Once again, the evidence is on my side. No go back to smoking your pot, and stay there.

The CIA said no justification. You lose, princess.

So now, you are not even going to read your own report, look at the facts of this issue, and instead are just going to repeat your talking point.

Got it. This is why libertarians will never be anything than a pot-smoker joke in the realm of ideology. I'd say you make all the other libertarians look bad, but they are all just a stupid as you.

You've shown nothing except a bunch of ancient warheads that don't look like they were usable. You're a gullible partisan hack who will believe anything you're told. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 nor did he have a working WMD program. Numpty.

I never said that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Typical libertarian, can't even argue his case, so he has to make up something unrelated, and pretend the other person said it.

Whether the warheads were old or new, whether they worked, or didn't, none of that is relevant.

According to the UN resolution, Saddam was required to destroy chemical and biological weapons, and provide that proof of their destruction to the UN inspectors.

Those are the facts, which your own link provided evidence of. Stupid libertarian, can't even understand the simplest of argument. Go back to your pot smoking.

So after 9/11, instead of going after the people responsible, we invade Iraq because of some vague threat that the UN had already been inspecting and dismissed? Um... no.

Really? So we never got Osama, or the Taliban? Just how much pot do you idiots in the Libertarian party smoke?

Iraq was justified by all the things outlined in your own link. That's what justified it.

That does not mean we didn't deal with the Taliban, and the terrorist training camps, and Osama.

Go back to your pot smoking, you are at least good at that, even if you suck at reading your own links and debating topics that adults who are not high, talk about.

 

[Taz]

The CIA said no justification. You lose, princess.

So now, you are not even going to read your own report, look at the facts of this issue, and instead are just going to repeat your talking point.

Got it. This is why libertarians will never be anything than a pot-smoker joke in the realm of ideology. I'd say you make all the other libertarians look bad, but they are all just a stupid as you.

You've shown nothing except a bunch of ancient warheads that don't look like they were usable. You're a gullible partisan hack who will believe anything you're told. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 nor did he have a working WMD program. Numpty.

I never said that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Typical libertarian, can't even argue his case, so he has to make up something unrelated, and pretend the other person said it.

Whether the warheads were old or new, whether they worked, or didn't, none of that is relevant.

According to the UN resolution, Saddam was required to destroy chemical and biological weapons, and provide that proof of their destruction to the UN inspectors.

Those are the facts, which your own link provided evidence of. Stupid libertarian, can't even understand the simplest of argument. Go back to your pot smoking.

So after 9/11, instead of going after the people responsible, we invade Iraq because of some vague threat that the UN had already been inspecting and dismissed? Um... no.

Really? So we never got Osama, or the Taliban? Just how much pot do you idiots in the Libertarian party smoke?

Iraq was justified by all the things outlined in your own link. That's what justified it.

That does not mean we didn't deal with the Taliban, and the terrorist training camps, and Osama.

Go back to your pot smoking, you are at least good at that, even if you suck at reading your own links and debating topics that adults who are not high, talk about.

The taliban are still alive and well. There's no proof Osama was captured or killed. The CIA said there was no justification to invade Iraq, and in fact, we got nothing out of it, except a ton of dead and injured Americans. For nothing. Are you really grumpy because it's too early for you to start drinking?