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

[drsmith1072]

You have no class, cracker?
do your DD
I hate to use this link, it has so much information
but you leave me no choice
read it or shut up
Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror - by Deroy Murdock

It was irrelevant the first two times that you spammed it as a response and it does nothing to address the actual content of my post.
Furthermore you do realize that you further prove what a parrot you are as you continue to only cut, paste and spam other peoples opinions as a response to anything and everything even though they have NOTHING to do with what was actually said, don't you?


NOW, how about you go back to my post and answer the questions posed to you based on your spin and stop spamming the board with your irrelevant nonresponsive parroting?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3580982-post559.html

question?
what question

That would be QUESTIONS that you failed to answer and now pretend don't exist. SO are you really this ignorant or are you just playing that way so you can try to justify avoiding questions of your arguments.

We did when GWB was president

we did what?? What are you claiming and care to prove it??

and

To start with I am 100% against all violence
These events went on from 1991 till 2003

Hell Saddam had kicked out the inspectors in 1998, oh I know here comes they choose to leave them selves argument

I just wonder why you choose to cherry pick a time in the past even as you ignore facts from a more recent time that tend to counter your spin and have MORE to do with the current conversation

and

Thats 1998, not 2003
re write history?

What does 1998 have to do with W's CHOICE to kick out the inspectors BEFORE they had completed their jobseven as W chose to invade in 2003? Furthermore, wasn't their job in accordance with the UN and wasn't W's decision at least partially based on the claim that iraq violated a UN resolution??
How can you honestly use the violation of UN resolutions as a justification when W went against the UN to invade???

and

If Saddam does the right thing in 1991, why the hell is there even a history?
This is why a liberal fails so many times in a free market environment
They do not understand a root cause analysis

AGAIN since you are prone to ignoring facts that counter your spin i guess I will have to repeat them to you. If you want to look at a root cause look to reagan who helped saddam in the iran-iraq war inspite of his use of WMDs. Do you actually believe saddam's reign began in 1991?

and

Iraq is an event that had a 63% in favor of invading in 2003
Nearly two-thirds of respondents, 63 percent, favor sending ground troops to remove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power
Poll: Bush gaining support on invading Iraq - CNN

Uh and you don't think that has anything to do with how W and the right talked up the imminent threat that iraq posed to the US and how if we don't intercede we could see mushroom clouds over our cities??

those are SOME of the questions that you avoided. Care to take answer them??

and let me add
spam?

yes you added spam. I hope that answers your question.

Your ignoring it makes it allot more than spam

Not ignoring it just calling it what it is, and it is Biased rigthwing opinion based propaganda. Any reader with any common sense would tell you that the guy is presenting his OPINIONS laced with out of context quotes and baseless assumptions.

Here is an example. The author goes into a rant about iraq and alqaeda and yet he presents a chart that shows iraq support of different terrorist groups but al qaeda is NOT in the chart. So why present that in an argument trying to link alqaeda to saddam when it does not show a link?? It's obvious that the auther is trying to claim that saddam is linked to al qaeda because saddam provided support to other terrorists in the past.


In other words the author of your link is being dishonest.

look you liberals kept claiming Saddam was everything but a bad person
I provide information to prove otherwise and you want to change the subject
not a chance

Please explain the words that you are trying to put in my mouth. What are you trying to claim that I said about saddam?? Please provide something of substance to support your claims. Furthermore, how is asking YOU to provide a real source and not some rightwing propaganda changing the subject??

Do you just make shite up as you go along??

Now let's see if you will actually answer the questions and address the actual content of my post or will you just spam some more nonresponsive bs??

 

[drsmith1072]

Refute it
any where you want to start is fine with me
You get the 1/2 of the story that the main stream media forgot this part after Bush was elected and you do not like it
Now all you can say is its irrefutable
the source even allows you to contact the source and gives so many links to back that info up it is nuts
and you come back with that?
Its called doing your DD
you judge one of our presidents and the choices, troops giving there lives, you make that judgement on the DD people done for you, with agendas
1/2-1/4 truths
yea I have an agenda
Its called the whole truth

Actually it's called an OPINION not the truth. Again providing a link does not make everything on it true. No matter how much you wish to beleive that is true it will not make it so.
Keep spamming as if you beleive that your spam is a response to any and every post even if it does not actually address what was said, apparently that's all that you have to offer.

Prove any of it not to be true
You have every chance
its your statement that claims none of it is true, not mine
Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked - Up To The Minute - CBS News
here is one from CBS news

What is your argument again?? You have spammed nonresponsive bs to almost every post to the point that you stopped making an actual argument of your own pages ago.

BTW when and where did I claim "none of it is true" as you claim I did?? Fact is that YOU claimed it was all fact and the "whole" truth. I merely poited out to you that it is an opinion based article and just because you provide a link to it, it doesn't make it true.

Now if you are done trying to rephrase what I said and put words into my mouth why don't you get back on topic and start addressing what I actually said for a change??

 

[drsmith1072]

Above drsmith72 called me a parrot for providing a link that anyone can read and decide for them selves whether or not any of it is true

Nice attempt to once again rephrase what i said and put words into my mouth. I called you a parrot because you kept spamming your cut and paste bs as if it were a response to any and all posts even though it failed to address the actual content of the post.
You are "parroting" and presenting someone else's opinions as you pretend that those OPINIONS are irrefutable fact.

I can understand why a person would have been against removing Saddam from power with force and spending the next 5 years fighting terrorist in Iraq instead of America
What I cannot understand is why is it when the other 1/2 of the truth comes out the left goes ballistic

You claim your link presents the whole truth then PROVE IT. I gave an example of the author of your previous link making opinion based assertions so where is your proof that it's the WHOLE truth??

Saddam was a Terrorist
plain and simple.
He invaded Kuwait in 1991

Yes he did and prior to that the US supported him and removed him from the list of nations that sponsor terror. Thank you reagan.

he was allowed to keep his power, under the resolve that came from the UN

what was it that you said earlier??

7) The UN? do not insult my intelligence nor the seriousness of this thread with the UN

LOL and yet you are the one constantly bringing up the UN as the justification for W's CHOICE to invade. LOL

he did not hold up to his end

and nether did W. You do realize that he went against the UN and their resolution when he kicked the inspectors out while claiming he was doing so to enforce UN resolutions?? LOL

he was selling oil on the black market and got caught according to our own US senate

OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL

Yes he was a bad guy, bad guys do bad things. Do you have a real point?

The link i have provided and called a spammer "Philanthropy of terror" has more links than you can count to confirm and re-confirm most of whats on there
and What does the Lib do?
gets mad
and then calls me a parrot
Hmmmmm
makes no sense to me

Do you actually believe that your attempts to mischaracterize what I actually said substantiates any of the claims that you make??

Hmmmmm
makes no sense to me

 

[JRK]

So you read his and instead of responding to the actual content you cut, paste and spam someone elses opinions even as you faill to offer anything REAL or of your own. LOL

WOW!

BTW a link does not make the source valid and everything listed on that source irrefutable. Anyone can create a webpage and post anything that they want to, the fact that you can provide a link to it doesn't make it true.

Refute it
any where you want to start is fine with me
You get the 1/2 of the story that the main stream media forgot this part after Bush was elected and you do not like it
Now all you can say is its irrefutable
the source even allows you to contact the source and gives so many links to back that info up it is nuts
and you come back with that?
Its called doing your DD
you judge one of our presidents and the choices, troops giving there lives, you make that judgement on the DD people done for you, with agendas
1/2-1/4 truths
yea I have an agenda
Its called the whole truth

Actually it's called an OPINION not the truth. Again providing a link does not make everything on it true. No matter how much you wish to beleive that is true it will not make it so.
Keep spamming as if you beleive that your spam is a response to any and every post even if it does not actually address what was said, apparently that's all that you have to offer.

I have offered you so much that I have been told I offered you to much
you said it was irrefutable
I said prove it and you cannot
You have an issue with the war in Iraq, that is your right
you post why
I have gave you links to dispute your whys and you do not like it
Mr Smith, it is time to own up to the fact that there are 2 sides to every story, denial is not a river in Egypt

 

[drsmith1072]

Refute it
any where you want to start is fine with me
You get the 1/2 of the story that the main stream media forgot this part after Bush was elected and you do not like it
Now all you can say is its irrefutable
the source even allows you to contact the source and gives so many links to back that info up it is nuts
and you come back with that?
Its called doing your DD
you judge one of our presidents and the choices, troops giving there lives, you make that judgement on the DD people done for you, with agendas
1/2-1/4 truths
yea I have an agenda
Its called the whole truth

Actually it's called an OPINION not the truth. Again providing a link does not make everything on it true. No matter how much you wish to beleive that is true it will not make it so.
Keep spamming as if you beleive that your spam is a response to any and every post even if it does not actually address what was said, apparently that's all that you have to offer.

I have offered you so much that I have been told I offered you to much
you said it was irrefutable
I said prove it and you cannot
You have an issue with the war in Iraq, that is your right
you post why
I have gave you links to dispute your whys and you do not like it
Mr Smith, it is time to own up to the fact that there are 2 sides to every story, denial is not a river in Egypt

You do realize that you have already responded to this post previously and I have already responded to your response don't you??

If you can't follow the thread how can anyone take your spin on how you claim things went in this thread seriously??

Furthermore, IF you claim I said something please PROVE that I actually said it instead of merely claiming that I did.
It's obvious that you don't have a clue as to what is going on so it would be best for you IF you would take the time and actually look at and read what I actually said then post what i actually said following or preceding what you think I said.

Apparently, that is about the only way for you to figure out that what you believe I said does not match what I actually said.

 

[JRK]

Actually it's called an OPINION not the truth. Again providing a link does not make everything on it true. No matter how much you wish to beleive that is true it will not make it so.
Keep spamming as if you beleive that your spam is a response to any and every post even if it does not actually address what was said, apparently that's all that you have to offer.

I have offered you so much that I have been told I offered you to much
you said it was irrefutable
I said prove it and you cannot
You have an issue with the war in Iraq, that is your right
you post why
I have gave you links to dispute your whys and you do not like it
Mr Smith, it is time to own up to the fact that there are 2 sides to every story, denial is not a river in Egypt

You do realize that you have already responded to this post previously and I have already responded to your response don't you??

If you can't follow the thread how can anyone take your spin on how you claim things went in this thread seriously??

Furthermore, IF you claim I said something please PROVE that I actually said it instead of merely claiming that I did.
It's obvious that you don't have a clue as to what is going on so it would be best for you IF you would take the time and actually look at and read what I actually said then post what i actually said following or preceding what you think I said.

Apparently, that is about the only way for you to figure out that what you believe I said does not match what I actually said.

Was this thread about the war in Iraq?
I ask a simple question and as a typical liberal event we ended up here
It is never about the issue
its all ways about the spin
I have had enough Mr Smith
I ask you to prove any item i have shared with you to be un true
for example

This is straight from the DOD
The main stream media as well as you ignore this
this is a game breaker
Saddam stated these items had been destroyed

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the

here is another
Iraq Uranium Canada | Hussein's uranium reaches Canada - Los Angeles Times
The removal of about 550 tons of "yellowcake" -- the seed material for high-grade nuclear enrichment -- was a significant step toward closing the books on Hussein's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried that the cache would fall into the hands of insurgents or Shiites hoping to advance Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions.

I mean where do you reach a point in which one says, well i was against the war because I am against wars, but I could see where there where issues with this entire situation after 9-11

The problem from day one with this event is there are all ways 2 sides of the story. Your side jumps up and down and says Bush lied and people died
Bush never lied
There was allot of things said that where not to the level that the press led people to believe
but he never really lied
WMDs where found
Saddam had nuclear ambitions
UN sanctions had been ignored
There where ties with Saddam and Al Qaeda
And him saying that Saddam had ties to 9-11 came from the same intel every-one had
Context of 'September 17, 2001: Bush Tells His Advisers ‘I Believe Iraq Was Involved’ in 9/11 Attacks'
he issue of possible Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 attacks is debated in a National Security Council meeting. According to journalist Bob Woodward, President Bush ends the debate by saying, “I believe Iraq was involved, but I’m not going to strike them now. I don’t have the evidence at this point.” Bush says wants to keep working on plans for military action in Iraq but indicates there will be plenty of time to do that later. Right now his focus is mainly on Afghanistan. [WOODWARD, 2002, PP. 99] At the time Bush says this, no evidence has emerged possibly linking Iraq to 9/11. One day later, an account of hijacker Mohamed Atta meeting an Iraqi agent in Prague will become known, but it will ultimately be discredited (see September 18, 2001).
Entity Tags: National Security Council, George W. Bush, Bob Woodward
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion

September 18, 2001: Alleged Meeting Between Atta and Iraqi Diplomant Leaked to Press
Information about the alleged April 2001 meeting in Prague between 9/11 plotter Mohamed Atta and Iraqi diplomat Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani is leaked to the Associated Press, which reports, “A US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States has received information from a foreign intelligence service that Mohamed Atta, a hijacker aboard one of the planes that slammed into the World Trade Center, met earlier this year in Europe with an Iraqi intelligence agent.” [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 9/18/2001; NEW YORK TIMES, 11/19/2003 SOURCES: UNNAMED US OFFICIAL] A long series of confirmations and refutations of this story will take place over the next several years, as some politicians try to make it a key argument to justify why the US should invade Iraq (see September 18, 2001-April 2007).
Entity Tags: Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, Mohamed Atta
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion
Context of 'September 18, 2001: Alleged Meeting Between Atta and Iraqi Diplomant Leaked to Press'

Now there is just a few examples of items that really happened
what now?
another lashing that has nothing to do with issues?

 

[drsmith1072]

I have offered you so much that I have been told I offered you to much
you said it was irrefutable
I said prove it and you cannot
You have an issue with the war in Iraq, that is your right
you post why
I have gave you links to dispute your whys and you do not like it
Mr Smith, it is time to own up to the fact that there are 2 sides to every story, denial is not a river in Egypt

You do realize that you have already responded to this post previously and I have already responded to your response don't you??

If you can't follow the thread how can anyone take your spin on how you claim things went in this thread seriously??

Furthermore, IF you claim I said something please PROVE that I actually said it instead of merely claiming that I did.
It's obvious that you don't have a clue as to what is going on so it would be best for you IF you would take the time and actually look at and read what I actually said then post what i actually said following or preceding what you think I said.

Apparently, that is about the only way for you to figure out that what you believe I said does not match what I actually said.

Was this thread about the war in Iraq?
I ask a simple question and as a typical liberal event we ended up here
It is never about the issue
its all ways about the spin
I have had enough Mr Smith
I ask you to prove any item i have shared with you to be un true
for example

Now there is just a few examples of items that really happened
what now?
another lashing that has nothing to do with issues?

So in other words you can't answer any of the questions that I ACTUALLY asked or comment on anything that I ACTUALLY said and can only continue to spam your "facts" even as you fail to show they have any relevance to anything that I have ACTUALLY said?

WOW!

Look back and the previous page and try answering a few of those quesitons that I reposted just for you.

P.S. YES, this thread is about the iraq war or did you miss the title

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

 

[BlindBoo]

I have offered you so much that I have been told I offered you to much
you said it was irrefutable
I said prove it and you cannot
You have an issue with the war in Iraq, that is your right
you post why
I have gave you links to dispute your whys and you do not like it
Mr Smith, it is time to own up to the fact that there are 2 sides to every story, denial is not a river in Egypt

You do realize that you have already responded to this post previously and I have already responded to your response don't you??

If you can't follow the thread how can anyone take your spin on how you claim things went in this thread seriously??

Furthermore, IF you claim I said something please PROVE that I actually said it instead of merely claiming that I did.
It's obvious that you don't have a clue as to what is going on so it would be best for you IF you would take the time and actually look at and read what I actually said then post what i actually said following or preceding what you think I said.

Apparently, that is about the only way for you to figure out that what you believe I said does not match what I actually said.

Was this thread about the war in Iraq?
I ask a simple question and as a typical liberal event we ended up here
It is never about the issue
its all ways about the spin
I have had enough Mr Smith
I ask you to prove any item i have shared with you to be un true
for example

This is straight from the DOD
The main stream media as well as you ignore this
this is a game breaker
Saddam stated these items had been destroyed

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the

here is another
Iraq Uranium Canada | Hussein's uranium reaches Canada - Los Angeles Times
The removal of about 550 tons of "yellowcake" -- the seed material for high-grade nuclear enrichment -- was a significant step toward closing the books on Hussein's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried that the cache would fall into the hands of insurgents or Shiites hoping to advance Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions.

I mean where do you reach a point in which one says, well i was against the war because I am against wars, but I could see where there where issues with this entire situation after 9-11

The problem from day one with this event is there are all ways 2 sides of the story. Your side jumps up and down and says Bush lied and people died
Bush never lied
There was allot of things said that where not to the level that the press led people to believe
but he never really lied
WMDs where found
Saddam had nuclear ambitions
UN sanctions had been ignored
There where ties with Saddam and Al Qaeda
And him saying that Saddam had ties to 9-11 came from the same intel every-one had
Context of 'September 17, 2001: Bush Tells His Advisers ‘I Believe Iraq Was Involved’ in 9/11 Attacks'
he issue of possible Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 attacks is debated in a National Security Council meeting. According to journalist Bob Woodward, President Bush ends the debate by saying, “I believe Iraq was involved, but I’m not going to strike them now. I don’t have the evidence at this point.” Bush says wants to keep working on plans for military action in Iraq but indicates there will be plenty of time to do that later. Right now his focus is mainly on Afghanistan. [WOODWARD, 2002, PP. 99] At the time Bush says this, no evidence has emerged possibly linking Iraq to 9/11. One day later, an account of hijacker Mohamed Atta meeting an Iraqi agent in Prague will become known, but it will ultimately be discredited (see September 18, 2001).
Entity Tags: National Security Council, George W. Bush, Bob Woodward
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion

September 18, 2001: Alleged Meeting Between Atta and Iraqi Diplomant Leaked to Press
Information about the alleged April 2001 meeting in Prague between 9/11 plotter Mohamed Atta and Iraqi diplomat Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani is leaked to the Associated Press, which reports, “A US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States has received information from a foreign intelligence service that Mohamed Atta, a hijacker aboard one of the planes that slammed into the World Trade Center, met earlier this year in Europe with an Iraqi intelligence agent.” [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 9/18/2001; NEW YORK TIMES, 11/19/2003 SOURCES: UNNAMED US OFFICIAL] A long series of confirmations and refutations of this story will take place over the next several years, as some politicians try to make it a key argument to justify why the US should invade Iraq (see September 18, 2001-April 2007).
Entity Tags: Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, Mohamed Atta
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion
Context of 'September 18, 2001: Alleged Meeting Between Atta and Iraqi Diplomant Leaked to Press'

Now there is just a few examples of items that really happened
what now?
another lashing that has nothing to do with issues?

I don't recall President Bush saying that because Iraq has an arsinal of 500 old chemical weapons (produced in the 1980s as per your link) we need to invade and occupy them. No he warned us about Mushroom Clouds over American cities because Saddam was actively seeking to produce a nuclear device so he could give it to the likes of al Queda.

The 550 tonnes of Yellowcake was not under Saddams control since the Kuwait war.

Atta in Prague? Naw.....

Cheney said: “We’ve never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11.”

Host Tim Russert then asked him: “And the meeting with Atta did not occur?”

Cheney replied: “We don’t know. I mean, we’ve never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm …”

Atta in Prague: Did It Happen? - Newsweek

Failure.

 

[JRK]

You do realize that you have already responded to this post previously and I have already responded to your response don't you??

If you can't follow the thread how can anyone take your spin on how you claim things went in this thread seriously??

Furthermore, IF you claim I said something please PROVE that I actually said it instead of merely claiming that I did.
It's obvious that you don't have a clue as to what is going on so it would be best for you IF you would take the time and actually look at and read what I actually said then post what i actually said following or preceding what you think I said.

Apparently, that is about the only way for you to figure out that what you believe I said does not match what I actually said.

Was this thread about the war in Iraq?
I ask a simple question and as a typical liberal event we ended up here
It is never about the issue
its all ways about the spin
I have had enough Mr Smith
I ask you to prove any item i have shared with you to be un true
for example

This is straight from the DOD
The main stream media as well as you ignore this
this is a game breaker
Saddam stated these items had been destroyed

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the

here is another
Iraq Uranium Canada | Hussein's uranium reaches Canada - Los Angeles Times
The removal of about 550 tons of "yellowcake" -- the seed material for high-grade nuclear enrichment -- was a significant step toward closing the books on Hussein's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried that the cache would fall into the hands of insurgents or Shiites hoping to advance Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions.

I mean where do you reach a point in which one says, well i was against the war because I am against wars, but I could see where there where issues with this entire situation after 9-11

The problem from day one with this event is there are all ways 2 sides of the story. Your side jumps up and down and says Bush lied and people died
Bush never lied
There was allot of things said that where not to the level that the press led people to believe
but he never really lied
WMDs where found
Saddam had nuclear ambitions
UN sanctions had been ignored
There where ties with Saddam and Al Qaeda
And him saying that Saddam had ties to 9-11 came from the same intel every-one had
Context of 'September 17, 2001: Bush Tells His Advisers ‘I Believe Iraq Was Involved’ in 9/11 Attacks'
he issue of possible Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 attacks is debated in a National Security Council meeting. According to journalist Bob Woodward, President Bush ends the debate by saying, “I believe Iraq was involved, but I’m not going to strike them now. I don’t have the evidence at this point.” Bush says wants to keep working on plans for military action in Iraq but indicates there will be plenty of time to do that later. Right now his focus is mainly on Afghanistan. [WOODWARD, 2002, PP. 99] At the time Bush says this, no evidence has emerged possibly linking Iraq to 9/11. One day later, an account of hijacker Mohamed Atta meeting an Iraqi agent in Prague will become known, but it will ultimately be discredited (see September 18, 2001).
Entity Tags: National Security Council, George W. Bush, Bob Woodward
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion

September 18, 2001: Alleged Meeting Between Atta and Iraqi Diplomant Leaked to Press
Information about the alleged April 2001 meeting in Prague between 9/11 plotter Mohamed Atta and Iraqi diplomat Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani is leaked to the Associated Press, which reports, “A US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States has received information from a foreign intelligence service that Mohamed Atta, a hijacker aboard one of the planes that slammed into the World Trade Center, met earlier this year in Europe with an Iraqi intelligence agent.” [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 9/18/2001; NEW YORK TIMES, 11/19/2003 SOURCES: UNNAMED US OFFICIAL] A long series of confirmations and refutations of this story will take place over the next several years, as some politicians try to make it a key argument to justify why the US should invade Iraq (see September 18, 2001-April 2007).
Entity Tags: Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, Mohamed Atta
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion
Context of 'September 18, 2001: Alleged Meeting Between Atta and Iraqi Diplomant Leaked to Press'

Now there is just a few examples of items that really happened
what now?
another lashing that has nothing to do with issues?

I don't recall President Bush saying that because Iraq has an arsinal of 500 old chemical weapons (produced in the 1980s as per your link) we need to invade and occupy them. No he warned us about Mushroom Clouds over American cities because Saddam was actively seeking to produce a nuclear device so he could give it to the likes of al Queda.

The 550 tonnes of Yellowcake was not under Saddams control since the Kuwait war.

Atta in Prague? Naw.....

Cheney said: “We’ve never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11.”

Host Tim Russert then asked him: “And the meeting with Atta did not occur?”

Cheney replied: “We don’t know. I mean, we’ve never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm …”

Atta in Prague: Did It Happen? - Newsweek

Failure.

Your Cheney quote is correct
Your Bush analogy is correct
Your view of the munitions is correct
The "yellow cake" was not secure according to the article

Why was the Iraqi war a failure?
Saddam was suppose to not have any munitions
He lied about those
He lied about Anthrax
are we to believe that he did not lie about anything else? and that claims that there were munitions sent to Syria?

What do we believe?
Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror - by Deroy Murdock
read this link, it is a eye opener

And here are some more
iraq, syria munitions - Google Search

 

[BlindBoo]

Your Cheney quote is correct
Your Bush analogy is correct
Your view of the munitions is correct
The "yellow cake" was not secure according to the article
Why was the Iraqi war a failure?
Saddam was suppose to not have any munitions
He lied about those
He lied about Anthrax
are we to believe that he did not lie about anything else? and that claims that there were munitions sent to Syria?

What do we believe?
Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror - by Deroy Murdock
read this link, it is a eye opener

And here are some more
iraq, syria munitions - Google Search

This was from the article you posted:

Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Hussein's nuclear efforts. U.N. inspectors had documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Persian Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the senior U.S. official said.

 

[drsmith1072]

Was this thread about the war in Iraq?
I ask a simple question and as a typical liberal event we ended up here
It is never about the issue
its all ways about the spin
I have had enough Mr Smith
I ask you to prove any item i have shared with you to be un true
for example

This is straight from the DOD
The main stream media as well as you ignore this
this is a game breaker
Saddam stated these items had been destroyed

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the

here is another
Iraq Uranium Canada | Hussein's uranium reaches Canada - Los Angeles Times
The removal of about 550 tons of "yellowcake" -- the seed material for high-grade nuclear enrichment -- was a significant step toward closing the books on Hussein's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried that the cache would fall into the hands of insurgents or Shiites hoping to advance Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions.

I mean where do you reach a point in which one says, well i was against the war because I am against wars, but I could see where there where issues with this entire situation after 9-11

The problem from day one with this event is there are all ways 2 sides of the story. Your side jumps up and down and says Bush lied and people died
Bush never lied
There was allot of things said that where not to the level that the press led people to believe
but he never really lied
WMDs where found
Saddam had nuclear ambitions
UN sanctions had been ignored
There where ties with Saddam and Al Qaeda
And him saying that Saddam had ties to 9-11 came from the same intel every-one had
Context of 'September 17, 2001: Bush Tells His Advisers ‘I Believe Iraq Was Involved’ in 9/11 Attacks'
he issue of possible Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 attacks is debated in a National Security Council meeting. According to journalist Bob Woodward, President Bush ends the debate by saying, “I believe Iraq was involved, but I’m not going to strike them now. I don’t have the evidence at this point.” Bush says wants to keep working on plans for military action in Iraq but indicates there will be plenty of time to do that later. Right now his focus is mainly on Afghanistan. [WOODWARD, 2002, PP. 99] At the time Bush says this, no evidence has emerged possibly linking Iraq to 9/11. One day later, an account of hijacker Mohamed Atta meeting an Iraqi agent in Prague will become known, but it will ultimately be discredited (see September 18, 2001).
Entity Tags: National Security Council, George W. Bush, Bob Woodward
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion

September 18, 2001: Alleged Meeting Between Atta and Iraqi Diplomant Leaked to Press
Information about the alleged April 2001 meeting in Prague between 9/11 plotter Mohamed Atta and Iraqi diplomat Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani is leaked to the Associated Press, which reports, “A US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States has received information from a foreign intelligence service that Mohamed Atta, a hijacker aboard one of the planes that slammed into the World Trade Center, met earlier this year in Europe with an Iraqi intelligence agent.” [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 9/18/2001; NEW YORK TIMES, 11/19/2003 SOURCES: UNNAMED US OFFICIAL] A long series of confirmations and refutations of this story will take place over the next several years, as some politicians try to make it a key argument to justify why the US should invade Iraq (see September 18, 2001-April 2007).
Entity Tags: Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, Mohamed Atta
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion
Context of 'September 18, 2001: Alleged Meeting Between Atta and Iraqi Diplomant Leaked to Press'

Now there is just a few examples of items that really happened
what now?
another lashing that has nothing to do with issues?

I don't recall President Bush saying that because Iraq has an arsinal of 500 old chemical weapons (produced in the 1980s as per your link) we need to invade and occupy them. No he warned us about Mushroom Clouds over American cities because Saddam was actively seeking to produce a nuclear device so he could give it to the likes of al Queda.

The 550 tonnes of Yellowcake was not under Saddams control since the Kuwait war.

Atta in Prague? Naw.....

Cheney said: “We’ve never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11.”

Host Tim Russert then asked him: “And the meeting with Atta did not occur?”

Cheney replied: “We don’t know. I mean, we’ve never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm …”

Atta in Prague: Did It Happen? - Newsweek

Failure.

Your Cheney quote is correct
Your Bush analogy is correct
Your view of the munitions is correct
The "yellow cake" was not secure according to the article

Why was the Iraqi war a failure?
Saddam was suppose to not have any munitions
He lied about those
He lied about Anthrax
are we to believe that he did not lie about anything else? and that claims that there were munitions sent to Syria?

What do we believe?
Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror - by Deroy Murdock
read this link, it is a eye opener

And here are some more
iraq, syria munitions - Google Search

So in your first semi non spam post your argument is basically, he was dishonest so that is proiof that he must have lied about other things as well?? LOL


Again why is it that you can bring up UN sanctions being ingored when you tell others

7) The UN? do not insult my intelligence nor the seriousness of this thread with the UN

If it is ok for you to try and justify the invasion by claiming saddam violated UN resolutions the why isn't ok for anyone else to bring up how W went against the UN and their resolutions when he kicked the inspectors out before they could finish their job even as he was trying to go after Iraq for violating UN resolutions??

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Bombs don't kill people. People kill people. Just ask Gaddafi and his family. What did his Son and Grandchildren have to do with anything? Seriously,the Allies,UN,and NATO should be prosecuted for War Crimes. Murdering the man's Grandchildren is nothing to be proud of.

 

[JRK]

I don't recall President Bush saying that because Iraq has an arsinal of 500 old chemical weapons (produced in the 1980s as per your link) we need to invade and occupy them. No he warned us about Mushroom Clouds over American cities because Saddam was actively seeking to produce a nuclear device so he could give it to the likes of al Queda.

The 550 tonnes of Yellowcake was not under Saddams control since the Kuwait war.

Atta in Prague? Naw.....

Cheney said: “We’ve never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11.”

Host Tim Russert then asked him: “And the meeting with Atta did not occur?”

Cheney replied: “We don’t know. I mean, we’ve never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm …”

Atta in Prague: Did It Happen? - Newsweek

Failure.

Your Cheney quote is correct
Your Bush analogy is correct
Your view of the munitions is correct
The "yellow cake" was not secure according to the article

Why was the Iraqi war a failure?
Saddam was suppose to not have any munitions
He lied about those
He lied about Anthrax
are we to believe that he did not lie about anything else? and that claims that there were munitions sent to Syria?

What do we believe?
Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror - by Deroy Murdock
read this link, it is a eye opener

And here are some more
iraq, syria munitions - Google Search

So in your first semi non spam post your argument is basically, he was dishonest so that is proiof that he must have lied about other things as well?? LOL


Again why is it that you can bring up UN sanctions being ingored when you tell others

7) The UN? do not insult my intelligence nor the seriousness of this thread with the UN

If it is ok for you to try and justify the invasion by claiming saddam violated UN resolutions the why isn't ok for anyone else to bring up how W went against the UN and their resolutions when he kicked the inspectors out before they could finish their job even as he was trying to go after Iraq for violating UN resolutions??

I do not need to justify it, it happened
we won
You know this circle with you can go on for ever
Your debating why we invaded, I just stated it was the right thing to do
You want to drag in the UN, thats fine with me
I was showing and have shown that the UN was concerned about Anthrax and other WMDs not accounted for weeks before we invaded
you know Mr. Smith Saddam did this to his self. My biggest issue with you is I never hear that from you

And spam?
All I was doing was rebutting the same BS from the left with the same Links
Big brother did not like it
thats the only reason I stopped

 

[thespook]

george phillip speaks truth

 

[Antiderivative]

lol@the yellow cake arguments.

Sodium is more dangerous to us.

 

[idb]

I don't recall President Bush saying that because Iraq has an arsinal of 500 old chemical weapons (produced in the 1980s as per your link) we need to invade and occupy them. No he warned us about Mushroom Clouds over American cities because Saddam was actively seeking to produce a nuclear device so he could give it to the likes of al Queda.

The 550 tonnes of Yellowcake was not under Saddams control since the Kuwait war.

Atta in Prague? Naw.....

Cheney said: “We’ve never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11.”

Host Tim Russert then asked him: “And the meeting with Atta did not occur?”

Cheney replied: “We don’t know. I mean, we’ve never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm …”

Atta in Prague: Did It Happen? - Newsweek

Failure.

Maybe they should send Trump's investigators over to have look.
I bet they won't believe what they find.

 

[JRK]

lol@the yellow cake arguments.

Sodium is more dangerous to us.

That is information
not a statement
The liberal mid does not understand that it takes information to Understand an event that needs resolution
Thats information, its all that it is

 

[JRK]

I don't recall President Bush saying that because Iraq has an arsinal of 500 old chemical weapons (produced in the 1980s as per your link) we need to invade and occupy them. No he warned us about Mushroom Clouds over American cities because Saddam was actively seeking to produce a nuclear device so he could give it to the likes of al Queda.

The 550 tonnes of Yellowcake was not under Saddams control since the Kuwait war.

Atta in Prague? Naw.....

Cheney said: “We’ve never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11.”

Host Tim Russert then asked him: “And the meeting with Atta did not occur?”

Cheney replied: “We don’t know. I mean, we’ve never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm …”

Atta in Prague: Did It Happen? - Newsweek

Failure.

Maybe they should send Trump's investigators over to have look.
I bet they won't believe what they find.

Blind Boo is it not true that Saddam supported terrorism?
His bluffs in the 80s and 90s became no more chances in 2001

 

[georgephillip]

What's your definition of terrorism?

"The use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims"?

The US is the only country that was condemned for international terrorism by the World Court, and we are also the only country that rejected a Security Council resolution calling for ALL states to observe international law.

Remember Oklahoma City?

"Everybody here was quite properly outraged by the Oklahoma City bombing, and for a couple of days, the headlines all read, Oklahoma City looks like Beirut.

"I didn’t see anybody point out that Beirut also looks like Beirut, and part of the reason is that the Reagan Administration had set off a terrorist bombing there in 1985 that was very much like Oklahoma City, a truck bombing outside a mosque timed to kill the maximum number of people as they left.

"It killed eighty and wounded two hundred, aimed at a Muslim cleric whom they didn’t like and whom they missed. It was not very secret."

Your indifference to US state-sponsored terror makes your criticisms of Saddam's crimes appear hypocritical, at best. It also blinds you to the fact many of Saddam's crimes only occurred because the US provided many of the weapons he used.

The United States is a Leading Terrorist State, Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian

 

[JRK]

What's your definition of terrorism?

"The use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims"?

The US is the only country that was condemned for international terrorism by the World Court, and we are also the only country that rejected a Security Council resolution calling for ALL states to observe international law.

Remember Oklahoma City?

"Everybody here was quite properly outraged by the Oklahoma City bombing, and for a couple of days, the headlines all read, Oklahoma City looks like Beirut.

"I didn’t see anybody point out that Beirut also looks like Beirut, and part of the reason is that the Reagan Administration had set off a terrorist bombing there in 1985 that was very much like Oklahoma City, a truck bombing outside a mosque timed to kill the maximum number of people as they left.

"It killed eighty and wounded two hundred, aimed at a Muslim cleric whom they didn’t like and whom they missed. It was not very secret."

Your indifference to US state-sponsored terror makes your criticisms of Saddam's crimes appear hypocritical, at best. It also blinds you to the fact many of Saddam's crimes only occurred because the US provided many of the weapons he used.

The United States is a Leading Terrorist State, Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian

What?
And as far as the bombing in Beirut, are you saying we had US citizens blow up a Mosque?
I am having trouble following that

Now one I understand clearly is that Saddam's crimes where only because he had the weapons to perform those crimes
Thats the same as saying colt made the 45, so colt is the reason we have murder in this country

With respect to your opinion there is allot of information out there that its in peoples best interest to use against us
You have picked up on this information as it is 100% fact with no 1/2-1/4 truths in it

Saddam was told by the world what to do in 1991
he did not even come close
Bush Sr made a HUGE mistake not finishing this in 1991
Clinton seen it coming, for the right reasons
9-11, Saddam had no choice

It is that simple