Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?

[BlindBoo]

Iraqis are now free


Democrats despise free people and free thought outside their MArxist Athiest baby killing homo agenda

Freedom in a Islamic theocracy?

Hate democrats much? Ahh, what happened did some damn dem piss on your corn flakes dude?

 

[JRK]

Iraqis are now free


Democrats despise free people and free thought outside their MArxist Athiest baby killing homo agenda

Freedom in a Islamic theocracy?

Hate democrats much? Ahh, what happened did some damn dem piss on your corn flakes dude?

Both of you
this country is being run into the ground by Obama
What we did in Iraq had a 63% approval rate in 2003


PRINCETON, NJ -- A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows support for an invasion of Iraq slightly higher than in recent weeks, at 64%, although support is slightly lower when Americans are asked about an invasion that would take place within the next two weeks. Public support for an invasion could dramatically increase if the United States is successful in getting a new U.N. resolution passed that would set conditions for Iraq to disarm, including the possibility of military action if Iraq does not disarm. However, a majority says it would still support an invasion if the United Nations rejects a new resolution on Iraq. The public is divided, with half opposed to an invasion, if the United States decides to proceed with military action without submitting a new resolution to the United Nations.

The poll was conducted March 14-15, prior to the meeting of U.S. President George Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, and their host, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Durao Barroso, to discuss diplomatic options on Iraq. The United States, Great Britain, and Spain have been the most vocal supporters of a tougher stance against Iraq in an effort to remove its capabilities for weapons of mass destruction.

According to the poll, 64% of Americans are in favor of invading Iraq with ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, while 33% are opposed. The level of support on this basic question is up from the most recent reading taken about two weeks ago, March 3-5, when 59% favored an invasion. Support has generally been in the mid-to-high 50% range since last June, with one exception being a 63% reading shortly after Colin Powell's Feb. 5 address to the United Nations on Iraq.

Public Support for Invading Iraq


http://www.gallup.com/poll/7990/public-support-iraq-invasion-inches-upward.aspx Added Link

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hate democrats much? Ahh, what happened did some damn dem piss on your corn flakes dude?

Dims are too busy pissing on the constitution to worry about corn flakes.

 

[georgephillip]

"Iraq Body Count (IBC) recorded 4,038 civilian deaths from violence in 2010 (compared to 4,686 in 2009).

Tell it to Duhhhrrrrsmith.

He says it's a line of BS made up by the right.

BTW, you know full well that 90% +++ of the deaths are Muslim on Muslim violence.

As the Occupying Power the US is 100% responsible for all of the Muslim on Muslim violence that's occurred in Iraq since March of 2003.

Or do you believe GCIV doesn't apply to Americans?

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Uncensored2008]

As the Occupying Power the US is 100% responsible for all of the Muslim on Muslim violence that's occurred in Iraq since March of 2003.

Yawn.

Weak and stupid.

 

[drsmith1072]

Then the Democrats share in that illegal behavior. Bush did not take this nation to war on his own, he could not have done it without the support from the congress and senate, and here is what they thought.
YouTube - Democrats, WMD's & The Iraq War


2. Not stable. Civilians dead in Iraq bus bombing 7-3-2011
Who detonated the bomb that blew the bus up? Us or the terrorists? And if you say our presence brought this about, you are officially a retard because these people have been doing this to each other for about a thousand years.
More stable now then it was in 2003. Have you been there? I didn't think so. The US deaths you hear of now are in Afghanistan, not Iraq, pay attention to the news and not to the Bots running the white house and you will see this for yourself.

Again a lie. There were few terror attacks in Iraq until the U.S. invaded. But, since the U.S. funds Posada, the MEK, the PPK, the Jundallah and other terrorist groups, it is only fair to fight fire with fire. Not only that, but the U.S. government uses the military as an instrument or terror. They drop 1000 lb bombs and the second someone hits the U.S. with an aircraft into a building the government wants us to surrender all our liberty. As far as people killing people, I would say modern government has them all beat. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot killed many tens of millions of people. I guess the U.S. figures that since Muslims kill each other that gives the U.S. license to kill innocents?

The fact is you are a neocon fascist warmonger and will soon find that no country ever had a military so powerful that it could prevent war in times of peace, or guarantee victory in times of war.

Also, you are such a moron to say: "Well, the Democrats did that too". In case you did not notice, both parties have been engaging in imperialism and militarism since WWII. The Trotskyites have equally infected the Right and the Let.

Terror has increased?
How would you know that?
Until it became politically advantageous to cover the bad events as they occurred in Iraq, do you have any idea how many murders took place in one year? how many people Saddam had executed per year?
Is the killing of over 30 people in Fort Hood Texas with the "alleged" killer screaming Alli Akbar any different than whats going on in Iraq? if so how?

Are you once again trying to argue that you don't know, therefore you must believe that what you don't know must be worse than what is actually known?

 

[JRK]

"Iraq Body Count (IBC) recorded 4,038 civilian deaths from violence in 2010 (compared to 4,686 in 2009).

Tell it to Duhhhrrrrsmith.

He says it's a line of BS made up by the right.

BTW, you know full well that 90% +++ of the deaths are Muslim on Muslim violence.

As the Occupying Power the US is 100% responsible for all of the Muslim on Muslim violence that's occurred in Iraq since March of 2003.

Or do you believe GCIV doesn't apply to Americans?

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

georgephillip bullshit
Muslims killing Muslims is a direct event of a Muslim killing a Muslim
Its why this mess exists to start with is Muslims killing
You liberal have 0 common sense
without the violence we would not be there to start with
1991 Saddam was told to stop or else
by 2003 or else was all that was left and every damn UN sanction he had on him he broke

There was over 500 munitions found with agents of mass destruction he was not suppose to have
thats a fact
there is so much Anthrax he had that is missing. It was not our place nor the U.Ns to make this shit go away
it was his

 

[drsmith1072]

Explain why the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of national wealth by two percent over the last two years when millions of working Americans have lost their jobs and houses.

To start with the to 1% has stopped spending money, I think the question you have to ask your self is why
you elected him

Those who have lost there jobs?m how many more jobs would we have in this country if we were drilling/extracting and refining oil right here in the good ol USA?
How about shale?
How about some nukes (power plants)
no-one can create work if the govt stops it

When the housing bubble busted all of those people have no where to go. How is that a rich persons fault?

If you want to know, why don't you look it up instead making the ASSUMPTION that the number of jobs created in those fields would put a dent in the unemployment numbers when you don't even know how many jobs your unasnwered "questions" would create?

As for your last question the right has constantly argued that the "job creators" otherwise knows as " the rich" needed those tax cuts to create jobs and yet in spite of the fact that they had those taxcuts for ten years now they chose to cut jobs in order to maintain their profits and usually force their remaining employees to work harder in order to maintain the same production levels at a stagnant pay level. In other words the "rich" inceased their wealth while shifting the sacrifice to the workforce/middle class which contributed to the worsening economy. This goes traight to the core of the right's argumetns that WE need to tighten OUR belts and make sacrifices and yet they defend those who aren't sharing in the sacrifice even as they force it onto others.

But hey, they got theirs, to hell with everyone else, right??

 

[BlindBoo]

Iraqis are now free


Democrats despise free people and free thought outside their MArxist Athiest baby killing homo agenda

Freedom in a Islamic theocracy?

Hate democrats much? Ahh, what happened did some damn dem piss on your corn flakes dude?

Both of you
this country is being run into the ground by Obama
What we did in Iraq had a 63% approval rate in 2003

That is a Republican talking point with no basis in fact. The Dems would say it was the Republicans that ran it into the ground. In reality both parties are to blame.

So what? 70% also believed that Saddam was behind the 9-11 attacks too. When they found out that there was no active Nuclear, Biological or Chemical Weapons manufactoring gong on what did they think then? After the successful invasion during the first 6 months of the occupation the additude of the American people changed.

 

[BlindBoo]

As the Occupying Power the US is 100% responsible for all of the Muslim on Muslim violence that's occurred in Iraq since March of 2003.

Yawn.

Weak and stupid.

Exactly. The US force they invaded with was to weak to stablize the country. Pretty fucking stupid is right.

 

[drsmith1072]

Who lied?
lets start there
was it Clinton?
How about Pelosi?
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

What does oil have to do with 9-11 and the events that began in 1991 and found an end point in March 2003?
Who said the mission solely based on getting OBL? you?
Those who are @ gitmo and those who have been killed would dis agree with you, its a different world for those people
Taliban Figure Killed in Airstrike, U.S. Says - washingtonpost.com
Bin Laden 'associate' killed in Afghanistan. 23/12/2006. ABC News Online

If you don't know who in government has been lying, about what and for how long, then I'd venture to say you haven't been paying attention for years. Of course, I don't know your age - so perhaps you're simply still politically wet behind the ears.

As for saying who lied and about what during the last Administration and those prior, when I said I don't trust those in government, I meant I don't trust anyone regardless of their political party or other proclivities. However there is a vast difference between Clinton's (not that I'm a fan) lies and the treachery, deceit and lies employed by Bush and Cheney to further their own personal agendas,

During Clinton's second term, it became a Republican obsession to obfuscate reality in favor of concentrating on Clinton's sexual dalliances - as if no other President in history had ever dallied in such a manner before (chuckle). Rather than conduct the country's business, which included keeping a vigilant eye on national security as well as those who might threaten it, Congressional Republicans spent every waking hour for almost 4 years scripting and acting out their daily Soap Opera. Do actually believe any of them bothered to set aside their impeachment furor in favor of acting responsibly and doing their jobs? Basically Congress led by the Republicans did everything but the country's business.

I suspect it was during this untended watch Osama bin Laden took the opportunity to recruit a terrorist team and plan an attack.

As for Clinton era lies, they revolved around his telling everyone he never had "sex with that woman." We all knew he was lying but so what, but a far cry from the purposefully setting about to further frighten an already terrified nation with lies regarding a conspiracy between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden to attack us on 9/11. Since bin Laden is Sunni and Hussein a Shiite, there's no way they'd ever conspire to do anything - unless it involved killing one another. Of course, Cheney banked on the fact that most Americans were ignorant about all things Middle Eastern, especially religion, culture or politics. I hate to say it, but he was certainly right,

Bush took unsubstantiated foreign intelligence and ratcheted it up a notch. He told Americans that Iraq had WMDs knowing full well his information was faulty and had even been recalled by the senders. We now know Iraq didn't posses the materials needed to build a WMD.

We do know Pakistan has nuclear weapons and has threatened on more than one occasion to deploy them in India's direction. We know in spite of Bush pumping millions into the Pakistani economy, they still don't like us. I'd make a preemptive guess that a preemptive strike against them however is highly unlikely - in fact I'd say it's out of the question..

Speaking of questions, I have one for you. If Saddam Hussein had indeed been building and squirreling away WMDs, exactly on whom do you think he was planning using them? It might just be me but if I received word that the most powerful military force in the world was on its way to take me out, I'd throw everything I had at them - including WMDs if I had them.

One can only wonder what old Saddam was waiting for? To most of us that was another big Red flag.

By the way, no doubt Bill Clinton lied while in office. That's another proclivity our Presidents seem committed to having.

P.S. As to the utter ruthlessness of Saddam Hussein - I certainly won't argue in his defense. However you may wish to enlighten yourself on how our Congress responded upon hearing that he had used biological warfare against the Kurds, murdering 40K men, women and children. Our response is in the Congressional Record and it doesn't show us in a favorable light. The entire Middle East situation in which we are currently embroiled has been on-going since the end of WWII or before, possibly it began with the discovery of huge oil reserves in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran etc. Whatever it is we're doing there has absolutely nothing to do with liberty, freedom or the American Way and it never has. Iraq is second only to Saudi Arabia in the size of its oil reserves. As for Afghanistan ever bother finding out why the Russians kept trying to invade Afghanistan in the 1980s? Or which country aided the Taliban in its rise to power. You'll find Russian along with our oily fingerprints all over that situation as well.

why is it everyone forgets these events?

Exclusive: Blix Backed Bush on WMD
Stewart Stogel, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2004

Why is it that you focus on february when blix gave a report to the UN in march that talked about how much iraq was cooporating with the inspectors??

BTW what you provided was an OP-ed from a newmax talking head who is presenting his OPINIONS and interpretation of the so-called facts. LOL Or do you actually believe this is an example of an "information based" link and not based on OPINION? LOL

 

[Uncensored2008]

Exactly. The US force they invaded with was to weak to stablize the country. Pretty fucking stupid is right.

Then maybe it should have been "Shock and Awe," then go home, huh?

 

[drsmith1072]

Curveball.....you know.....the Iraqi national who told us Saddam had WMD's?

Guess what.......he's since admitted that he lied.

Our whole war was based on lies and greed. Shall we talk about Cheney's company Halliburton and their shoddy construction inside the Green Zone that killed around 47 soldiers (some of whom were special forces) by electrocuting them in the showers?

How's about the unarmored HumVees that we started with?

Yeah......sure.........

what about this guy/
A former general and friend of Saddam Hussein who defected but maintains close contact with Iraq claims the regime supported al-Qaida with intelligence, finances and munitions and believes weapons of mass destruction are hidden in Syria.

Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia in the late 1980s, spoke with Ryan Mauro of WorldThreats.com.

Known as the "Butcher of Basra," al-Tikriti commanded units that dealt with chemical and biological weapons. He defected shortly before the Gulf War in 1991.

Last month, Saddam Hussein's No. 2 Air Force officer, Georges Sada, told the New York Sun Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria six weeks before the war started. Sada claimed two Iraqi Airways Boeing jets converted to cargo planes moved the weapons in a total of 56 flights. They attracted little attention, he said, because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in 2002.



Read more: Saddam general: WMDs in Syria Saddam general: WMDs in Syria


how about these 500 munitions that Saddam was suppose to have destroyed?
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

how about Blix and the UN?
In his report Blix said that he had a "strong suspicion" that Iraq "is hiding" as much as 10,000 liters of the exotic poison.
he private proclamation went further than Blix's public statements where he insisted that weapons Baghdad could not account for was not proof they existed and were hidden.
A senior official at the French foreign ministry in Paris told NewsMax that he was aware of the assertion by Blix and believed it was made "under pressure from Washington."

On Thursday, CIA Director George Tenet told an audience at Georgetown University that his agency's assessment on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was shared by numerous intelligence agencies other than the CIA.

Blix's report would seem to corroborate the Tenet claim.

Former U.N. chief arms inspector Rolf Ekeus had explained that anthrax is one form of WMD that is easily hidden and stored.

Nice sidestep with an extra sidestep of spam. LOL It's really funny how you rush to believe the "butcher of basra" et al and their claims that they can't prove all because their claims support your spin. LOL

 

[JRK]

If you don't know who in government has been lying, about what and for how long, then I'd venture to say you haven't been paying attention for years. Of course, I don't know your age - so perhaps you're simply still politically wet behind the ears.

As for saying who lied and about what during the last Administration and those prior, when I said I don't trust those in government, I meant I don't trust anyone regardless of their political party or other proclivities. However there is a vast difference between Clinton's (not that I'm a fan) lies and the treachery, deceit and lies employed by Bush and Cheney to further their own personal agendas,

During Clinton's second term, it became a Republican obsession to obfuscate reality in favor of concentrating on Clinton's sexual dalliances - as if no other President in history had ever dallied in such a manner before (chuckle). Rather than conduct the country's business, which included keeping a vigilant eye on national security as well as those who might threaten it, Congressional Republicans spent every waking hour for almost 4 years scripting and acting out their daily Soap Opera. Do actually believe any of them bothered to set aside their impeachment furor in favor of acting responsibly and doing their jobs? Basically Congress led by the Republicans did everything but the country's business.

I suspect it was during this untended watch Osama bin Laden took the opportunity to recruit a terrorist team and plan an attack.

As for Clinton era lies, they revolved around his telling everyone he never had "sex with that woman." We all knew he was lying but so what, but a far cry from the purposefully setting about to further frighten an already terrified nation with lies regarding a conspiracy between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden to attack us on 9/11. Since bin Laden is Sunni and Hussein a Shiite, there's no way they'd ever conspire to do anything - unless it involved killing one another. Of course, Cheney banked on the fact that most Americans were ignorant about all things Middle Eastern, especially religion, culture or politics. I hate to say it, but he was certainly right,

Bush took unsubstantiated foreign intelligence and ratcheted it up a notch. He told Americans that Iraq had WMDs knowing full well his information was faulty and had even been recalled by the senders. We now know Iraq didn't posses the materials needed to build a WMD.

We do know Pakistan has nuclear weapons and has threatened on more than one occasion to deploy them in India's direction. We know in spite of Bush pumping millions into the Pakistani economy, they still don't like us. I'd make a preemptive guess that a preemptive strike against them however is highly unlikely - in fact I'd say it's out of the question..

Speaking of questions, I have one for you. If Saddam Hussein had indeed been building and squirreling away WMDs, exactly on whom do you think he was planning using them? It might just be me but if I received word that the most powerful military force in the world was on its way to take me out, I'd throw everything I had at them - including WMDs if I had them.

One can only wonder what old Saddam was waiting for? To most of us that was another big Red flag.

By the way, no doubt Bill Clinton lied while in office. That's another proclivity our Presidents seem committed to having.

P.S. As to the utter ruthlessness of Saddam Hussein - I certainly won't argue in his defense. However you may wish to enlighten yourself on how our Congress responded upon hearing that he had used biological warfare against the Kurds, murdering 40K men, women and children. Our response is in the Congressional Record and it doesn't show us in a favorable light. The entire Middle East situation in which we are currently embroiled has been on-going since the end of WWII or before, possibly it began with the discovery of huge oil reserves in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran etc. Whatever it is we're doing there has absolutely nothing to do with liberty, freedom or the American Way and it never has. Iraq is second only to Saudi Arabia in the size of its oil reserves. As for Afghanistan ever bother finding out why the Russians kept trying to invade Afghanistan in the 1980s? Or which country aided the Taliban in its rise to power. You'll find Russian along with our oily fingerprints all over that situation as well.

why is it everyone forgets these events?

Exclusive: Blix Backed Bush on WMD
Stewart Stogel, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2004

Why is it that you focus on february when blix gave a report to the UN in march that talked about how much iraq was cooporating with the inspectors??

BTW what you provided was an OP-ed from a newmax talking head who is presenting his OPINIONS and interpretation of the so-called facts. LOL Or do you actually believe this is an example of an "information based" link and not based on OPINION? LOL

your joking right?
Those words that man said you do not consider information?
United Nations Security Council Resolution 686 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
esolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

 

[drsmith1072]

Feel free to post any response I've made that deny the above allegations.

Okay.

No, not great like we have here in the states, but the point is things got worse not better for Iraqis(esp women) after the shiites executed Saddam.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-iraqi-war-was-a-failure-20.html#post3426925

Hey, but you're lying for the party - which is an honorable thing to do, right?

How is any of that a denial of the abuses you listed in iraq?? Care to explain??

More to the point many of those attocities were made during a time in which your hero, Ronnie Raygun, was providing Saddam with financial and military support/aid,

It's spelled "Reagan," stupid fuck. Reagan was not in office in 1992, nor 1997, nor 1998.

There was a constant pattern of abuse. Saddam was a tyrant. From the rape rooms to chemical attacks, this was a constant.

Your blind hatred of anything right of Castro may justify lying in your alleged mind, but it doesn't alter the fact that what you post is patently false.

You serve your party and you have no integrity, ergo you post anything which smears the hated opposition or promotes your shameful party - regardless of veracity.

UH you do realize that you quoted incidents that occured prior to 1988 don't you??

{1988: Chemical attack on Kurdish village of Halabja killed approximately 5,000 people.

1987-1988: Iraqi regime used chemical agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages.

Funny how you once again are shown to ignore your own words when they provide evidence that runs counter to your desired argument.

So who was president in 87 and 88 and had supported saddam in the iran-iraq war??
Here is a hint that will lead you in the right direction.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTldYbqlJc8]YouTube - Rumsfeld & Saddam Make Nice[/ame]

 

[JRK]

Curveball.....you know.....the Iraqi national who told us Saddam had WMD's?

Guess what.......he's since admitted that he lied.

Our whole war was based on lies and greed. Shall we talk about Cheney's company Halliburton and their shoddy construction inside the Green Zone that killed around 47 soldiers (some of whom were special forces) by electrocuting them in the showers?

How's about the unarmored HumVees that we started with?

Yeah......sure.........

what about this guy/
A former general and friend of Saddam Hussein who defected but maintains close contact with Iraq claims the regime supported al-Qaida with intelligence, finances and munitions and believes weapons of mass destruction are hidden in Syria.

Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia in the late 1980s, spoke with Ryan Mauro of WorldThreats.com.

Known as the "Butcher of Basra," al-Tikriti commanded units that dealt with chemical and biological weapons. He defected shortly before the Gulf War in 1991.

Last month, Saddam Hussein's No. 2 Air Force officer, Georges Sada, told the New York Sun Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria six weeks before the war started. Sada claimed two Iraqi Airways Boeing jets converted to cargo planes moved the weapons in a total of 56 flights. They attracted little attention, he said, because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in 2002.



Read more: Saddam general: WMDs in Syria Saddam general: WMDs in Syria


how about these 500 munitions that Saddam was suppose to have destroyed?
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

how about Blix and the UN?
In his report Blix said that he had a "strong suspicion" that Iraq "is hiding" as much as 10,000 liters of the exotic poison.
he private proclamation went further than Blix's public statements where he insisted that weapons Baghdad could not account for was not proof they existed and were hidden.
A senior official at the French foreign ministry in Paris told NewsMax that he was aware of the assertion by Blix and believed it was made "under pressure from Washington."

On Thursday, CIA Director George Tenet told an audience at Georgetown University that his agency's assessment on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was shared by numerous intelligence agencies other than the CIA.

Blix's report would seem to corroborate the Tenet claim.

Former U.N. chief arms inspector Rolf Ekeus had explained that anthrax is one form of WMD that is easily hidden and stored.

Nice sidestep with an extra sidestep of spam. LOL It's really funny how you rush to believe the "butcher of basra" et al and their claims that they can't prove all because their claims support your spin. LOL

You liberals amaze me
How far do you want to go with this?
esolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

Blix stated inn 2003 that they had lied

Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".
Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.
He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.
He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.
Mr Blix added that Iraq has refused to co-operate with a request from UN weapons inspectors regarding flights of U-2 spy planes for aerial imagery and surveillance.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441 Link Added
how far do you want to take this?

 

[drsmith1072]

why is it everyone forgets these events?

Exclusive: Blix Backed Bush on WMD
Stewart Stogel, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2004

Why is it that you focus on february when blix gave a report to the UN in march that talked about how much iraq was cooporating with the inspectors??

BTW what you provided was an OP-ed from a newmax talking head who is presenting his OPINIONS and interpretation of the so-called facts. LOL Or do you actually believe this is an example of an "information based" link and not based on OPINION? LOL

your joking right?
Those words that man said you do not consider information?
United Nations Security Council Resolution 686 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
esolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

WOW! imagine that, yet anotehr sidestep from you. Do you ever actually respond to what people post or is spamming items that don't address what was said and OPINION all that you have to offer? What does the spam you provided this time have to do with your previous spam??

So why is it that you focus on february and ignore blix's report to the UN in march in which he talks about how much iraq is cooporating with inspectors??

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yes but Gaddafi is worse than Saddam Hussein,Pol Pot,and Adolf Hitler combined. Well that's what the Bombers are telling us anyway. Man,some people will believe anything if they want to believe it badly enough. It's actually pretty sad. The Bombers sure have pulled out all the stops on their Libyan War propaganda. Next they'll probably claim Gaddafi strangles Babies and cute little puppy dogs in his spare time too. What a sham.

 

[drsmith1072]

what about this guy/
A former general and friend of Saddam Hussein who defected but maintains close contact with Iraq claims the regime supported al-Qaida with intelligence, finances and munitions and believes weapons of mass destruction are hidden in Syria.

Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia in the late 1980s, spoke with Ryan Mauro of WorldThreats.com.

Known as the "Butcher of Basra," al-Tikriti commanded units that dealt with chemical and biological weapons. He defected shortly before the Gulf War in 1991.

Last month, Saddam Hussein's No. 2 Air Force officer, Georges Sada, told the New York Sun Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria six weeks before the war started. Sada claimed two Iraqi Airways Boeing jets converted to cargo planes moved the weapons in a total of 56 flights. They attracted little attention, he said, because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in 2002.



Read more: Saddam general: WMDs in Syria Saddam general: WMDs in Syria


how about these 500 munitions that Saddam was suppose to have destroyed?
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

how about Blix and the UN?
In his report Blix said that he had a "strong suspicion" that Iraq "is hiding" as much as 10,000 liters of the exotic poison.
he private proclamation went further than Blix's public statements where he insisted that weapons Baghdad could not account for was not proof they existed and were hidden.
A senior official at the French foreign ministry in Paris told NewsMax that he was aware of the assertion by Blix and believed it was made "under pressure from Washington."

On Thursday, CIA Director George Tenet told an audience at Georgetown University that his agency's assessment on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was shared by numerous intelligence agencies other than the CIA.

Blix's report would seem to corroborate the Tenet claim.

Former U.N. chief arms inspector Rolf Ekeus had explained that anthrax is one form of WMD that is easily hidden and stored.

Nice sidestep with an extra sidestep of spam. LOL It's really funny how you rush to believe the "butcher of basra" et al and their claims that they can't prove all because their claims support your spin. LOL

You liberals amaze me
How far do you want to go with this?
esolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

Blix stated inn 2003 that they had lied

Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".
Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.
He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.
He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.
Mr Blix added that Iraq has refused to co-operate with a request from UN weapons inspectors regarding flights of U-2 spy planes for aerial imagery and surveillance.

how far do you want to take this?

In case you missed it your own quote stated " Blix's public statements where he insisted that weapons Baghdad could not account for was not proof they existed and were hidden."

So in other words the fact that iraq could not account for them did not prove that they still existed.

That is from your own quote. So spamming other BS as you cherry pick comments that suit your needs even as you ignore more recent comments from the same source shows how desperate you are to spin this.

 

[drsmith1072]

OBL did, and 2 years after 9/11, Jr. stated he was no longer concerned with him.

Why hasn't your Messiah® caught bin Laden? Why did your Messiah® claim that he would during the campaign, only the turn around and say bin Laden isn't important?

Why are both you and he such fucking hypocrites?

Nice sidestep in an attempt to avoid facts that he doesn't wish to address. LOL And you have the nerve to attack others for a lack of integrity even as you edit, cut and paste only a SMALL excerpt of a post even as you fail to address even the small excerpt and try to change the subject? Really? LOL