Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Our government wasn't making public cases about his WMD's. Of course, our intelligence community had been monitoring him ever since 1991. The fact is, not only did he have WMD's, he had actually used them (against the Kurds in the north of Iraq).
Oh Lord....here we go. Natalie gets her info from Hollywood. We went into Iraq for "oil". Funny thing though - we didn't plant the American flag. We have no oil (that's why prices skyrocketed to $4 per gallon under Barack Obama's failed leadership), and we handed the nation over to the Iraqi people.
I'm truly enjoying educating you today. I also enjoy your frustration over the realization that everything you were ever trained to believe is a lie. You're conflict is palpable.
How is that the "bottom line"? The bottom line is that you ignorantly stated that we left Afghanistan and we didn't. Furthermore, Osama Bin Laden wasn't even in Afghanistan. He left after we arrived to kick ass. The fact that you don't know that much shows how stupid you are. Bin Laden was found and killed in Pakistan you dumb shit.
How truly fucked up you are......
We DID leave Afghanistan with our major initial force....and morons like Bush and Cheney OPENLY stated that they were NO LONGER concerned about OBL....they had a war for oil that was much more important to them.
This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?
Honestly, I don't remember him promising that. But.....no argument there. We absolutely should have had the Iraq people reimburse us for their freedom. I don't disagree with you at all on that.Oh Lord....here we go. Natalie gets her info from Hollywood. We went into Iraq for "oil". Funny thing though - we didn't plant the American flag. We have no oil (that's why prices skyrocketed to $4 per gallon under Barack Obama's failed leadership), and we handed the nation over to the Iraqi people.
Which THEN proves how truly Cheney FUCKED UP........Remember Dick face stating that the Iraq war would be paid with their oil and would only last a few weeks????
Sweetie...you didn't known what WMD's were. You didn't know that the U.S. could engage in conflicts on multiple fronts. You didn't know that WMD's were actually found in Iraq. You didn't know that the Taliban was granting safe harbor to Al Qaeda and thus that they had to be removed. I could go on almost all day about the things I've educated you on in just 15 minutes here. You don't know anything because you only listen to libtard propaganda. You're not the least bit interested in the facts. You're only interested in the liberal comfort food that makes you feel good when you hear it.You have a LONG, LONG way to go before you can educate anyone, moron......I'm truly enjoying educating you today. I also enjoy your frustration over the realization that everything you were ever trained to believe is a lie. You're conflict is palpable.
You seem so obsessed with something that happened 15 years ago. But yet you're astoundingly silent on the fact that more troops have died in Afghanistan under Barack Obama (because he refuses to provide them with the tools and support they need) than ever did under George Bush and you're even more silent on the fact that Obama has invaded Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and Syria.
Yes, so many things can be deadly to fragile human beings. Still, nothing else is like that power to just squeeze that little trigger and have a lethal chunk of metal unleashed up to a kilometer or more away. And that nice, loud bang! Almost a shame to muffle it with some danged 'silencer'.
Statistically, you democrats and your Muslim Terrorist allies use bombs to kill most often. What thrills leftists and their ISIS friends is that loud Boom! of the ied that was put in a crowded market or theater, or on a school bus.
The only way our guns keep us protected from you and your bombs (your Al Qaeda buds included) is to avoid crowded places. In fact, Muzzie Beast democrat Omar Mateen used that same principle of a large crowd in a confined space to please Allah in Orlando. True that he didn't use a bomb, thank god, since the carnage would have been far greater.
Best Sports Cars 2016 – Editors' Choice for Premium and Exotic Sports Cars - CARandDRIVER[
Hmmm...your refutation seems unsupported by the remarks I see on the first pages here:
- best rifle for recreational target shooting - Shooters Forum
- Best .22 target match rifle money can buy | Shooters' Forum -- Look at the photos on this page. I don't see anything resembling an AR-15, although I realize looks aren't everything. Maybe some of the ones there are semi-auto rifles of AR-15 ilk....I wouldn't know, but the quick glances I gave to the pics led me to think a lot of them are bolt action pieces.
- Benchrest and Target Rifles For Sale
- 1000-Yard Benchrest Guide within AccurateShooter.com
- Varmint Rifle Roundup You don't need to spend big bucks for outstanding accuracy
- TTAG Project: 1,000 Yard Rifle for $500 - The Truth About Guns
- American Sniper Rifles: 5 of Chris Kyle’s Favorite Sniper Rifles
So using your "logic" no one will drive a Prius.
Look, you are here to end civil rights, I get it. You have probably never fired a gun, nor do those you associate with engage in shooting. I understand your type, agenda driven ignorance.
I have an Uberti .44 cap and ball revolver that I enjoy shooting. This is a black powder beast that rarely hits the same spot twice. Why do I shoot it? Historical reasons, this was one of the weapons that won the West, plus it is a challenge.
Now wait, that isn't on you "list" of the "best" so that means no one would target shoot with it.
Your claim that no one uses an AR-15 for target practice is one of extreme ignorance (agenda driven due to your hostility to civil rights) An absurd statement belied by every gun range in the nation on any given day.
Now I know that if one has a target of any sort to shoot, what one needs is a ranged weapon. The AR-15 is a ranged firearm, so I'm sure one can shoot it at a target or in target shooting competitions.
Most people don't buy a rifle for professional competition, sparky.
Also, I'm not at all pretending to know anything about actual gun use. I'm relying on someone I know very well and trust very much, with things vastly more important to me than the minutia of guns and shooting. As he said, and I trust his opinion because I have to as I don't know anything about target shooting and he shoots for relaxation and fun much as I sail and cook for the same reasons, he doesn't think an AR-15 is a target shooter's weapon of choice. The content I see a the links above suggest to me he's right...That's not to say no target shooters will use an AR-15 to do so. In fact, I'd wager people do.
Again, I doubt this "person" exists. You are clearly an anti-liberty leftist with an agenda to end civil rights. You tell tales that you think will aid you in your quest to crush the rights of others.
Note:
My meaning for "target shooter/ing" is perhaps errant. For me, it means some sort of precision shooting that's done in a competitive setting against other shooters and aiming at targets 700+ yards distant. It could well be I'm being "sloppy" with my terms. If so, and most especially if that slovenliness has misled you as to my meaning/intent, I'm sorry.
That would be match shooting, and even in this you are displaying complete ignorance.
I compete in match rounds that are nothing as you describe.
What you claim is akin to stating that only a Ferrari is the only car good for driving since they are used in the Monaco GT. You don't even cover a fraction of the sport, and there is a LOT more involved that just the sport.
Yeah, Obama was going to spend money out of his own pocket to provide the "tools" that our troops needed in Afghanistan......Are you fucking for real???
And, moron....we have INVADED Libya, Egypt, Yemen and Syria????? Isn't THAT what your equally fucked up right wingers been clamoring for for the past 4 years???
I didn't say any of that. You are stupid and hateful. Nothing more.Now? They had the phony oil for food program going that Saddam used to build his army and palaces. Also, Germany was selling them arms. The UN just kept dragging out the weapons inspection sham and doing not a thing about all the UN violations. I criticized them 20 years ago, where were you? Hillary and most of the dems voted for the war so don't blame others for your cognitive dissonance and ignorance.
The above, a fucked up review of history based on FOX brainwashing....
Based on this idiot's revisionist history.....
- We should have attacked Germany for selling weapons to Saddam.
- Saddam was building up his army so well....and that is why they were defeated in about a week.
- The UN failed in having their inspection of [the non-existent] WMDs......and that is why Powell ordered the UN inspectors out of Iraq before bombing the shit out of that country.
She really is stupid and hateful. Then again - how many liberals aren't?I didn't say any of that. You are stupid and hateful. Nothing more.Now? They had the phony oil for food program going that Saddam used to build his army and palaces. Also, Germany was selling them arms. The UN just kept dragging out the weapons inspection sham and doing not a thing about all the UN violations. I criticized them 20 years ago, where were you? Hillary and most of the dems voted for the war so don't blame others for your cognitive dissonance and ignorance.
The above, a fucked up review of history based on FOX brainwashing....
Based on this idiot's revisionist history.....
- We should have attacked Germany for selling weapons to Saddam.
- Saddam was building up his army so well....and that is why they were defeated in about a week.
- The UN failed in having their inspection of [the non-existent] WMDs......and that is why Powell ordered the UN inspectors out of Iraq before bombing the shit out of that country.
Green:
You need to explain how my logic would lead to that conclusion were it applied to driving.
Red:
As I wrote, and you quoted the sentence in which I wrote it, I understand that people may shoot a target with an AR-15. It's a ranged weapon and people certainly shoot at targets using ranged weapons. (The sentence in question is in the "purple" section of this post.
Blue:
Frankly, it's not about me or my friend. Why are you so focused on making statements about me and him, presumably to discredit my remarks, when the subject of my post that initiated our discourse is whether an AR-15 is a "gun of choice" for "target shooters," or as you say below, "match shooters?"
Perhaps this discussion would close to both our satisfaction were you to present information that makes your point without resorting to ad hominem claims and innuendo. You're are the "gun expert." Why are you assailing me and my friend instead of discussing the gun and whether it's well suited to "match shooting?"
Purple:
You'll recall that yours and my conversation began with the following remark, which is all that I wrote:
Last weekend, I hung out with a friend who is a target shooter. He uses a single bolt action rifle. I asked him if an AR-15 would be a good gun to use for that. He laughed and said, "No. You can shoot things with it, but it's not a gun a target shooter would choose."Now it may well be that the ontology of my statements (my friend's) is comparable to that of the Ferrari analogy you provided. So what? Have you shown that anyone who is a "target shooter" (match shooter) would choose an AR-15 for that purpose? I don't see anywhere that you have. In contrast, I do see a whole lot of "stuff" that suggests something other than an AR-15 is what match shooters would choose for that purpose.
Yes, what I call "target shooting" may well be "match shooting." I don't now, nor did I then, care what the correct term for it is, but also I didn't know then that "match shooting" may be the correct term for it. I called it target shooting, and my friend didn't feel the need to correct me, likely because he knows what kind of shooting he does that I'm aware he does. I could have called it "recreational shooting" and he'd still have known what I meant.
As it turns out, what he does is shoot at targets in an event called "full bore." Though he can wax poetically about it as I can about watches, to me, it amounts to aiming at a target one can only see clearly through a scope, and hoping one gauged "everything" correctly, and that nothing changes between the time one has "figured it all out" and the bullet's arrival on the target. Hence my term for it, "target shooting."
You may have known what I meant back at post #1449 -- indeed it appears you do now even if you didn't before -- but I think you were more focused on sharing your assumptions/conclusions about my friend and me than you were on responding in a neutral and objective way to the specific statements I made. (Only the Lord and you know why because I don't give a damn about AR-15s as distinct from any other semiautomatic rifle, and neither does my friend.)
Well that military operation against Saddam Hussein was "based on a report that Saddam Hussein had WMD's" but you don't accept that. How funny. When a libtard does something - you accept it, no questions asked. When a Republican does the exact same thing, you have a melt down and come up with cute little tag lines like "Bush Lied, People Died". Idiot.Did you know that in 1998 George Bush wasn't president? I wonder how these LIBERALS got it wrong. Also Bill(I did not have sexual relations with that woman) bombed an aspirin factory(killing an innocent janitor) that he thought was WMD. Boy you fucktards are stupid.
Idiot....the bombing of that aspirin factory was based on a report that OBL was there.....NOT top kill a janitor.
How truly stupid you right wingers are...
Our government never said that Hussein had WMD's until Bush incorporated the lie for an excuse to invade. Leading up to it they told 935 documented lies. Bush wanted him bad....4500 dead's worth.
Well that military operation against Saddam Hussein was "based on a report that Saddam Hussein had WMD's" but you don't accept that. How funny. When a libtard does something - you accept it, no questions asked. When a Republican does the exact same thing, you have a melt down and come up with cute little tag lines like "Bush Lied, People Died". Idiot.
This forum is not the venue to fix right wing stupidity....(only a sturdy 2x4 could do that over their fucked up heads.)
We went to Iraq for 3 reasons:
1. To STEAL their oil...
2. To make GWB into a "hero" war president......
3. To divert blame for 9-11 and the tanking US economy....PERIOD !!!
Spin it any way you want, right wing morons.......It will NOT help your sorry consciences.
Oh Lord....here we go. Natalie gets her info from Hollywood. We went into Iraq for "oil". Funny thing though - we didn't plant the American flag. We have no oil (that's why prices skyrocketed to $4 per gallon under Barack Obama's failed leadership), and we handed the nation over to the Iraqi people.
And sweetie....the economy "tanked" because of the housing collapse. And the housing collapse happened because Bill Clinton and the libtards signed the 1997 Community Re-Investment Act which incentivized banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford the loans (because idiot libtard socialism dictates that "everybody" should own a home - whether they can afford one or not). I'm truly enjoying educating you today. I also enjoy your frustration over the realization that everything you were ever trained to believe is a lie. You're conflict is palpable.
Could it be that they want their liberal war machines to make obscene profits? Oops, bet you didn't know that, did ya?
Halliburton was a "liberal" outfit ??? Amazing, what one "learns" from right wing idiots....
Green:
You need to explain how my logic would lead to that conclusion were it applied to driving.
Your claim was that an AR-15 is not used in target shooting and supported this by pointing to professional match shooters who preferred other rifles.
I rarely shoot distances greater than 100 yards.
Red:
As I wrote, and you quoted the sentence in which I wrote it, I understand that people may shoot a target with an AR-15. It's a ranged weapon and people certainly shoot at targets using ranged weapons. (The sentence in question is in the "purple" section of this post.
In fact, it is one of the more popular guns for target shooting. the 10/22 is #1, but AR-15 isn't that far behind it.
Pink:
I don't care what most people do. As goes my original comment from post #1449, the only thing I care about is whether an AR-15 is or is not a rifle "target shooters would choose." I also don't care if the shooter buys, steals or borrows the gun they choose. Lastly, don't care if the competition or recreational "target shooting" occasion that calls for one to use a rifle is professional or amateur in nature.
Blue:
Frankly, it's not about me or my friend. Why are you so focused on making statements about me and him, presumably to discredit my remarks, when the subject of my post that initiated our discourse is whether an AR-15 is a "gun of choice" for "target shooters," or as you say below, "match shooters?"
The left is at war to end the Bill of Rights. The terrorist attack in Orlando is being used by the anti-liberty left to redouble the attack on the 2nd Amendment. In the last two years, a host of attacks on the 1st Amendment have met with success, the attacks by democrats on the Little Sisters of the Poor, Sweet Cakes, and Hobby Lobby in particular. Hobby Lobby had the resources to defend their rights and the democrats were backed down in court. But the tactic of attack from all directions is one the anti-liberty left is currently engaged in as part of the overall war on the Constitution.
Target shooting is what most people do. Hunting is fairly rare in shooting. Even avid hunters do far more target shooting than shooting at animals.
Perhaps this discussion would close to both our satisfaction were you to present information that makes your point without resorting to ad hominem claims and innuendo. You're are the "gun expert." Why are you assailing me and my friend instead of discussing the gun and whether it's well suited to "match shooting?"
You offered an appeal to authority fallacy with your "friend." Refuting or questioning this is hardly ad hom.
Purple:
You'll recall that yours and my conversation began with the following remark, which is all that I wrote:
Last weekend, I hung out with a friend who is a target shooter. He uses a single bolt action rifle. I asked him if an AR-15 would be a good gun to use for that. He laughed and said, "No. You can shoot things with it, but it's not a gun a target shooter would choose."Now it may well be that the ontology of my statements (my friend's) is comparable to that of the Ferrari analogy you provided. So what? Have you shown that anyone who is a "target shooter" (match shooter) would choose an AR-15 for that purpose? I don't see anywhere that you have. In contrast, I do see a whole lot of "stuff" that suggests something other than an AR-15 is what match shooters would choose for that purpose.
Because the AR-15 is one of the most common rifles used in target shooting, the remark is demonstrably false and patently absurd.
Yes, what I call "target shooting" may well be "match shooting." I don't now, nor did I then, care what the correct term for it is, but also I didn't know then that "match shooting" may be the correct term for it. I called it target shooting, and my friend didn't feel the need to correct me, likely because he knows what kind of shooting he does that I'm aware he does. I could have called it "recreational shooting" and he'd still have known what I meant.
This is a niche of one tenth of one percent of shooters. It is statistically irrelevant, hence my pointing out that it falls into the same idea as claiming that one can only "pleasure drive" a Ferrari.
As it turns out, what he does is shoot at targets in an event called "full bore." Though he can wax poetically about it as I can about watches, to me, it amounts to aiming at a target one can only see clearly through a scope, and hoping one gauged "everything" correctly, and that nothing changes between the time one has "figured it all out" and the bullet's arrival on the target. Hence my term for it, "target shooting."
You may have known what I meant back at post #1449 -- indeed it appears you do now even if you didn't before -- but I think you were more focused on sharing your assumptions/conclusions about my friend and me than you were on responding in a neutral and objective way to the specific statements I made. (Only the Lord and you know why because I don't give a damn about AR-15s as distinct from any other semiautomatic rifle, and neither does my friend.)
Then this is minute segment that is in no way representative of target shooters, making you rpoint irrelevant.
The whole goddam Republican party had been looking for an excuse to get Saddam Hussein ever since he tried to kill GHW Bush. This letter to Clinton removes all doubt:I am surprised the moron didn't call US racist, but I am sure it isn't far from now.
View attachment 79297
LMAO!! That Bush comment is a no brainer. Ask the families of the 4500 dead young Americans who had to go in and find Saddam Hussein so the Bush family's "Vengeance" could be completed. The only motivation Bush had to get Saddam was because he tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar circa 1993.
The entire Republican party never got over that. This letter they wrote to Clinton proves it:
December 18, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President,
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the
steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.
That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at
risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
What you libidiots fail to understand is that Republicans can be liberals too. Liberals love to get the US in wars, just look at the history of the liberals.
Woodrow Wilson ran on the NO US involvement in WWI and after his re election he got US involved.
FDR got US involved with the War in Germany after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Truman got US involved in the Forgotten War.
Kennedy got US involved in the Vietnam War. Johnson escalated the war for his Texas Democrat war machine.
Bush Senior invaded Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
Clinton wagged the dog, in Bosnia when he got caught with a Cuban in Monica.
Bush Junior went to war with Iraq when Osama Obama bombed NY.
Obama's Clinton bombed Libya, just because she could do it.
You liberals love war, how else can they reduce the population other than aborting liberal fetus's. Thank you for that, otherwise there would be many more liberals in America today.
That's a goddam boldfaced lie. The only reason Bush had to invade Iraq was that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate his daddy in Qatar circa 1993. Not to worry....his family vengeance only cost 4500 young American lives and 35,000 seriously wounded.
More liberal lies, do you guys ever smarten up?
December 18, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President,
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding,
and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end
of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear
and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a
new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready
to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam
Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we
can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to
punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections
were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if
not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during
which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely
that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we
will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle
East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass
destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American
troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant
portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President,
the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle
this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the
steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten
to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action
as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy
for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy,
we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under
existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests
in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
Our government wasn't making public cases about his WMD's. Of course, our intelligence community had been monitoring him ever since 1991. The fact is, not only did he have WMD's, he had actually used them (against the Kurds in the north of Iraq).
We already KNOW that, fuckhead........We SOLD those weapons to Saddam when he was fighting Iran....
NOW, dumb shit...answer the salient question......
Did we invade and occupy Iraq because Saddam killed Kurds with the weapons he bought from us?
Yes or No??
