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

[TakeAStepBack]

Lastly, any munitions that we "found" there we fucking sold to them. So, I really don't know where you are coming from.

It is your right to dis agree with the invasion
you have no right to ignore the facts

The link clearly shows that every thing Saddam was told to do or else, he ignored.
was there bad intel? the fatcs say yes, but they also point clearly that much Saddam had decalred to have had has never been seen, it was never destroyed as he was told to do by all. This country in a majority agreed then and now it was the right thing to do
Saddam is gone
There last election had over a 60% turnout

10 years ago there was no vote'

There economy is growing faster than any other

these are facts u caanot dispute
Economy of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BBC News - Iraq election turnout 62%, officials say

It is your right to dis agree with the invasion
you have no right to ignore the facts

I'm not ignoring the facts. The fact is that there were no WMDs, Iraq was not harboring Al-Qaeda, as was asserted either. Which makes the entire occupation baseless.

was there bad intel? the fatcs say yes, but they also point clearly that much Saddam had decalred to have had has never been seen, it was never destroyed as he was told to do by all

Bad intel is a fact, yes. No buts about it. Many go beyond that, to flat out lying about intel.
So you expect him to comply in the destruciton of items that were never seen and still havent been?

This country in a majority agreed then and now it was the right thing to do

This is a flat out lie.

Iraq is also not stable as you claim and is rife with govt. corruption form the new regime we imposed.

 

[BlindBoo]

Boo
the gangs that range from the krips fighting over drug territory to the Vietnamese in Houston fighting over the shrimp market dominance is no different
It is politically motivated

Gang on gang violence is over territory not political. Very few if any coordinated bomb attacks targeting the government by either of them, unless of course you have a some examples????

so who controls a territory is not political?
ok

You said it yourself. Drug trade. Money. The gangs to not target police recuirment with bombs.

 

[JRK]

Lastly, any munitions that we "found" there we fucking sold to them. So, I really don't know where you are coming from.

It is your right to dis agree with the invasion
you have no right to ignore the facts

The link clearly shows that every thing Saddam was told to do or else, he ignored.
was there bad intel? the fatcs say yes, but they also point clearly that much Saddam had decalred to have had has never been seen, it was never destroyed as he was told to do by all. This country in a majority agreed then and now it was the right thing to do
Saddam is gone
There last election had over a 60% turnout

10 years ago there was no vote'

There economy is growing faster than any other

these are facts u caanot dispute
Economy of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BBC News - Iraq election turnout 62%, officials say

I'm not ignoring the facts. The fact is that there were no WMDs, Iraq was not harboring Al-Qaeda, as was asserted either. Which makes the entire occupation baseless.

was there bad intel? the fatcs say yes, but they also point clearly that much Saddam had decalred to have had has never been seen, it was never destroyed as he was told to do by all

Bad intel is a fact, yes. No buts about it. Many go beyond that, to flat out lying about intel.
So you expect him to comply in the destruciton of items that were never seen and still havent been?

This country in a majority agreed then and now it was the right thing to do

This is a flat out lie.

Iraq is also not stable as you claim and is rife with govt. corruption form the new regime we imposed.

PRINCETON, NJ -- The well-established phenomenon of Americans rallying behind their leaders and the country in times of crisis has now taken hold with the Iraq war underway. Three days after President Bush announced the "opening stages" of war, a Gallup Poll recorded a 24-point surge in the percentage of Americans saying they are satisfied with the way things are going in the country, and a 13-point rise in public approval for the way Bush is handling his job. According to the March 22-23 poll, six in 10 Americans are now satisfied with the direction of the country, and 71% approve of Bush's job performance.


todays polls go all over the place
there is so many lies associated with todays polls take your pick

Let me add the other facts I posted you did not reply to
one other item
try to use links like I do
This why this entire matter is so confusing
the facts are simple

in 2003 we supported the war
the reasons were pointed out to exist as I hav e proved over and over
u, the democratic party and the media have ignored those fact

 

[JRK]

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance—not even today—of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[117] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[117]

I ask you again
what more of a smoking gun does one need?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You said it yourself. Drug trade. Money.

So the quest to control trade and money within a territory isn't political?


The amazing things we learn from the left.....

 

[JRK]

You said it yourself. Drug trade. Money.

So the quest to control trade and money within a territory isn't political?


The amazing things we learn from the left.....

And lets add that 62% of the iraqi people voted for there future in 2010, the link is herein many times
that quest that we speak of in this country is pure illegal and is by definition terror

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It is your right to dis agree with the invasion
you have no right to ignore the facts

The link clearly shows that every thing Saddam was told to do or else, he ignored.
was there bad intel? the fatcs say yes, but they also point clearly that much Saddam had decalred to have had has never been seen, it was never destroyed as he was told to do by all. This country in a majority agreed then and now it was the right thing to do
Saddam is gone
There last election had over a 60% turnout

10 years ago there was no vote'

There economy is growing faster than any other

these are facts u caanot dispute
Economy of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BBC News - Iraq election turnout 62%, officials say

I'm not ignoring the facts. The fact is that there were no WMDs, Iraq was not harboring Al-Qaeda, as was asserted either. Which makes the entire occupation baseless.

Bad intel is a fact, yes. No buts about it. Many go beyond that, to flat out lying about intel.
So you expect him to comply in the destruciton of items that were never seen and still havent been?

This country in a majority agreed then and now it was the right thing to do

This is a flat out lie.

Iraq is also not stable as you claim and is rife with govt. corruption form the new regime we imposed.

PRINCETON, NJ -- The well-established phenomenon of Americans rallying behind their leaders and the country in times of crisis has now taken hold with the Iraq war underway. Three days after President Bush announced the "opening stages" of war, a Gallup Poll recorded a 24-point surge in the percentage of Americans saying they are satisfied with the way things are going in the country, and a 13-point rise in public approval for the way Bush is handling his job. According to the March 22-23 poll, six in 10 Americans are now satisfied with the direction of the country, and 71% approve of Bush's job performance.


todays polls go all over the place
there is so many lies associated with todays polls take your pick
Let me add the other facts I posted you did not reply to
one other item
try to use links like I do
This why this entire matter is so confusing
the facts are simplein 2003 we supported the war
the reasons were pointed out to exist as I hav e proved over and overu, the democratic party and the media have ignored those fact

First, you used no links. Second, Your original comment is that we still suppor tthe war in majority. That is a complete flat out lie. You used no link to back your assertion either.

Yes, the facts are simple. The Bush administration exaggerated and lied the public into an unjust war that has cost us far too many lives, resources and strained diplomatic ties.

Your supposed smoking gun indicates that records were in error. So, where were all the chemicals?

During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5][6][7] Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[8] President George W. Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,[9] despite multiple dissenting opinions[10] and questions of integrity[11][12][13] about the underlying intelligence
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Just a tid bit from research for dummies.

 

[JRK]

I'm not ignoring the facts. The fact is that there were no WMDs, Iraq was not harboring Al-Qaeda, as was asserted either. Which makes the entire occupation baseless.

Bad intel is a fact, yes. No buts about it. Many go beyond that, to flat out lying about intel.
So you expect him to comply in the destruciton of items that were never seen and still havent been?

This is a flat out lie.

Iraq is also not stable as you claim and is rife with govt. corruption form the new regime we imposed.

PRINCETON, NJ -- The well-established phenomenon of Americans rallying behind their leaders and the country in times of crisis has now taken hold with the Iraq war underway. Three days after President Bush announced the "opening stages" of war, a Gallup Poll recorded a 24-point surge in the percentage of Americans saying they are satisfied with the way things are going in the country, and a 13-point rise in public approval for the way Bush is handling his job. According to the March 22-23 poll, six in 10 Americans are now satisfied with the direction of the country, and 71% approve of Bush's job performance.


todays polls go all over the place
there is so many lies associated with todays polls take your pick
Let me add the other facts I posted you did not reply to
one other item
try to use links like I do
This why this entire matter is so confusing
the facts are simplein 2003 we supported the war
the reasons were pointed out to exist as I hav e proved over and overu, the democratic party and the media have ignored those fact

First, you used no links. Second, Your original comment is that we still suppor tthe war in majority. That is a complete flat out lie. You used no link to back your assertion either.

Yes, the facts are simple. The Bush administration exaggerated and lied the public into an unjust war that has cost us far too many lives, resources and strained diplomatic ties.

Your supposed smoking gun indicates that records were in error. So, where were all the chemicals?

During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5][6][7] Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[8] President George W. Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,[9] despite multiple dissenting opinions[10] and questions of integrity[11][12][13] about the underlying intelligence
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Just a tid bit from research for dummies.

DUMMIES?
All you have done is shown that no-one knows where the "stuff" Saddam had is today
you find a poll done in 2011 on the iraq war, post it
there is a reason you cannot find one

now as far as GWB being the one who lied about Saddam, I hate having to do this but you leave no choice
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[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." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... 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 redefine 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." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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 ... 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." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23

 

[BlindBoo]

You said it yourself. Drug trade. Money.

So the quest to control trade and money within a territory isn't political?


The amazing things we learn from the left.....

That would be the illegal drug trade they fight over right? Not fighting to control the politics.

 

[JRK]

PRINCETON, NJ -- The well-established phenomenon of Americans rallying behind their leaders and the country in times of crisis has now taken hold with the Iraq war underway. Three days after President Bush announced the "opening stages" of war, a Gallup Poll recorded a 24-point surge in the percentage of Americans saying they are satisfied with the way things are going in the country, and a 13-point rise in public approval for the way Bush is handling his job. According to the March 22-23 poll, six in 10 Americans are now satisfied with the direction of the country, and 71% approve of Bush's job performance.


todays polls go all over the place
there is so many lies associated with todays polls take your pick
Let me add the other facts I posted you did not reply to
one other item
try to use links like I do
This why this entire matter is so confusing
the facts are simplein 2003 we supported the war
the reasons were pointed out to exist as I hav e proved over and overu, the democratic party and the media have ignored those fact

First, you used no links. Second, Your original comment is that we still suppor tthe war in majority. That is a complete flat out lie. You used no link to back your assertion either.

Yes, the facts are simple. The Bush administration exaggerated and lied the public into an unjust war that has cost us far too many lives, resources and strained diplomatic ties.

Your supposed smoking gun indicates that records were in error. So, where were all the chemicals?

During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5][6][7] Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[8] President George W. Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,[9] despite multiple dissenting opinions[10] and questions of integrity[11][12][13] about the underlying intelligence
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Just a tid bit from research for dummies.

DUMMIES?
All you have done is shown that no-one knows where the "stuff" Saddam had is today
you find a poll done in 2011 on the iraq war, post it
there is a reason you cannot find one

now as far as GWB being the one who lied about Saddam, I hate having to do this but you leave no choice
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[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." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... 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 redefine 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." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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 ... 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." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23

If you would look at the links I have provided thru out this thread
those quotes as he ones GWB used were for the most part true

 

[Uncensored2008]

That would be the illegal drug trade they fight over right? Not fighting to control the politics.

You realize that being an obtuse idiot doesn't actually help your case, don't you?

 

[BlindBoo]

That would be the illegal drug trade they fight over right? Not fighting to control the politics.

You realize that being an obtuse idiot doesn't actually help your case, don't you?

Equivocating drug gangs territorial battles within the US with the coordinated bombings carried out by those fighting against the American-Iraq government really has no case to begin with.

 

[JRK]

That would be the illegal drug trade they fight over right? Not fighting to control the politics.

You realize that being an obtuse idiot doesn't actually help your case, don't you?

the libs are out of ammunition
they lied about BUSH for 8 years and then one day they had it all
now look at them
it has reached a level in which a murder in Iraq is still GWB fault, one in detroit is no-ones
That a murder over who controls the country of Iraq is not the same of who controls the hood in detroit
I have nothing but sadness for these people
the reality has so far to go, the kool aid is bland, and denial is still a river in Egypt, they think
This country has seen the other side
GWB made some mistakes, but he did more for my ottom line than any-one ever has before him w2hen it came to the taxes I paid the federal govt

 

[TakeAStepBack]

PRINCETON, NJ -- The well-established phenomenon of Americans rallying behind their leaders and the country in times of crisis has now taken hold with the Iraq war underway. Three days after President Bush announced the "opening stages" of war, a Gallup Poll recorded a 24-point surge in the percentage of Americans saying they are satisfied with the way things are going in the country, and a 13-point rise in public approval for the way Bush is handling his job. According to the March 22-23 poll, six in 10 Americans are now satisfied with the direction of the country, and 71% approve of Bush's job performance.


todays polls go all over the place
there is so many lies associated with todays polls take your pick
Let me add the other facts I posted you did not reply to
one other item
try to use links like I do
This why this entire matter is so confusing
the facts are simplein 2003 we supported the war
the reasons were pointed out to exist as I hav e proved over and overu, the democratic party and the media have ignored those fact

First, you used no links. Second, Your original comment is that we still suppor tthe war in majority. That is a complete flat out lie. You used no link to back your assertion either.

Yes, the facts are simple. The Bush administration exaggerated and lied the public into an unjust war that has cost us far too many lives, resources and strained diplomatic ties.

Your supposed smoking gun indicates that records were in error. So, where were all the chemicals?

During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5][6][7] Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[8] President George W. Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,[9] despite multiple dissenting opinions[10] and questions of integrity[11][12][13] about the underlying intelligence
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Just a tid bit from research for dummies.

DUMMIES?
All you have done is shown that no-one knows where the "stuff" Saddam had is todayyou find a poll done in 2011 on the iraq war, post it
there is a reason you cannot find one

now as far as GWB being the one who lied about Saddam, I hate having to do this but you leave no choice
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[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." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... 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 redefine 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." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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 ... 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." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23

Right. Which is why Bush was denied a new resolution by the UN council. You need PROOF, actual evidence of a violation. There was no such evidence and still isn't. It was bad intel or lied intel and had no basis in reality. Keep assertign that there wqas a reasoning beyond a vendetta, but all you have is a straw man argument after that based on the opinions of elected officals on what they think...their opinion.

I don't need to do any more than that to prove the war was not only unjust, unpopular and amoral. It was an international crime. Equipped with breaches of international laws as well as domestic ones. Cheney, Bush and Rumsfield, along with their accomplices int he justice dept., need to be brought up on the war crimes they are all flagerantly guilty of.

As to you first post, it is fully inaccurate and full of lies. Try being honest with yourself.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

March 2003Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the U.N. Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration did not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%.[1]

An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war, lower than the 79% in favor at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War.[2]

[edit] May 2003A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and the newspaper USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.[9]

[edit] August 2004An August 2004 poll showed that two-thirds (67%) of the American public believe the U.S. went to war based on incorrect assumptions.[10] The morale of the US troops has been subject to variations. Important issues are the vulnerability of the Humvee vehicles, and the great number of wounded and maimed soldiers [11] [12]

[edit] November 2004The US presidential election of November 2004 (United States presidential election, 2004) saw George Bush reelected with a narrow majority of the voters and has been the only general, if somewhat circumspect, test of the US popular support of the war. The election campaign was widely seen as a referendum on Bush's job performance to during his first four years, and in particular on the validity of the Iraq War and War on Terrorism, as such the election can be seen as an indication that a slim majority of Americans supported the war.

[edit] May 2005A Gallup poll from May 2005 showed that the American public has more confidence in the military than in any other institution. Seventy-four percent of those surveyed said they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the military.[13]

[edit] June 2005A Washington Post/ABC poll finds that almost 60% of Americans think the war should not have been fought in the first place. For the first time since the war started, over half of Americans polled believe the war has not made America safer.[14]

[edit] July 2005On July 4, 2005 the National Council of Churches officially took a stand against the Iraq War calling it dishonorable and urging a change in U.S. policy.[15]

[edit] April 2006A CBS news poll was conducted from 28–30 April 2006, nearly three years after President Bush's Mission Accomplished appearance. 719 adults were polled nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus four percent. 30% of those polled approved of the way Bush was handling the Iraq situation, 64% disapproved, and 6% were unsure. 51% of those polled felt America should have stayed out of Iraq, 44% said the invasion was the right thing to do, with 5% unsure.[2]

[edit] July 2006A CBS/New York Times poll was conducted from 21–25 July 2006. 1,127 adults were polled nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3%. Thirty percent of those polled said the invasion of Iraq was worth the American casualties and other costs, while 63% said the war was not worth it. Six percent was unsure. 32% said they approved of the way George W. Bush was handling the situation in Iraq, 62% disapproved, with six percent unsure.[2]

[edit] September 2006A CBS/New York Times poll was conducted from 15–19 September 2006. 1,131 adults were polled nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3%. 51% of those polled said that, looking back, they felt that the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq. 44% said the U.S. did the right thing in invading Iraq. Five percent were unsure.[2]

[edit] October 2006A CNN poll was conducted by Opinion Research Corporation from 29 September to 2 October 2006. 1,014 adults were polled nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3%. 61% of those polled disapproved of the war in Iraq, 38% approved, with 1% unsure.[2]

A Newsweek poll was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International on 26–27 October 2006. 1,002 adults were polled nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3%. When asked From what you know now, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or not?, 43% said it was the "Right Thing".[2]

[edit] November 2006A Newsweek poll was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International on 9–10 November 2006. 1,006 adults were polled nationwide. When asked if the U.S. did the right thing by going into Iraq, 41% responded yes, 54% responded no, with 5% unsure. The margin of error was plus or minus 3%.[2]

[edit] December 2006A CNN poll taken on 15–17 December 2006, found that 67% polled opposed the war in Iraq, but that only and that a majority of 54% believed in an exit over the next year.[16] An LA times poll done a few days previously had found that 65% believe Iraq has become a civil war. The same poll found that 66% believed neither side was winning and only 26% of respondents agreed America should stay "as long as it takes". Both polls found that 2/3 or more of respondents disapproved of President Bush's handling of the war.
[edit] January 2007A CBS poll of 993 nationwide adults taken on 1–3 January found that under 1 in 4 approve of Bush's Iraq policy, up 2 points from the last CBS poll in December.[17] The same poll finds that 82% believe the Democrats have not developed a "clear plan" and 76% believe the same is true of President Bush.[2]

A CNN poll conducted January 11 found that 32% of 1,093 adults polled 'strongly' or 'moderately' supported a planned increase in Iraqi troop levels, while 66% 'strongly' or 'moderately' opposed the plan. Three percent were unsure. The margin of error was plus or minus three percent.[2]

[edit] May 2007On May 4–7, CNN polled 1,028 adults nationwide. 34% said they favored the war in Iraq, 65% opposed, and 1% was undecided. The margin of error was plus or minus 3%.[2]

[edit] August 2007 August 6–8, CNN polled 1,029 adults nationwide. 33% said they favored the war in Iraq, 64% opposed, and 3% was undecided. The margin of error was plus or minus 3%.[2]

[edit] September 2007On September 10–12, in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, 33% approved of George Bush's handling of the "situation in Iraq", while 65% disapproved of it.[2]

[edit] December 2008On December, 11-14, An ABC News/Washington Post Poll of 1,003 adults nationwide, found 64% felt the Iraq War was not worth fighting, with 34% saying it was worth fighting, with 2% undecided. The margin of error was 3%.[


As usual, the trickery worked at first. Americans are proud and believed in their president when the war began in 2003. Until of course the reality of no WMDs set in and the painful realization that we were going to be in this for the long haul.

The Iraq war has not been majority popular since 2003-2004 and grew increasingly worse from there in support.

Yeah, not so much, pal. Still working the kinks out too.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Equivocating drug gangs territorial battles within the US with the coordinated bombings carried out by those fighting against the American-Iraq government really has no case to begin with.

Gang rivalry is the very definition of "political." Gangs are a tribal microcosm of society. For you to deny that gang "turf wars" are political is laughable.

 

[Contumacious]

[
Notice how Woodward never said we supplied the actual mustard gas.

Once again, the Paullette paranoia shines through.

Iraqi chemical attacks on Iranian troops--and US assistance to Iraq--continued throughout the Iran-Iraq war. In a parallel program, the US defence department also provided intelligence and battle-planning assistance to Iraq.

The August 17, 2002 NYT reported that, according to "senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program", even though "senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents ... President Reagan, vice president George Bush [senior] and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq."

Even if Reagan did not provide the gasses, and that's a big If, they approved their use.

.

 

[JRK]

First, you used no links. Second, Your original comment is that we still suppor tthe war in majority. That is a complete flat out lie. You used no link to back your assertion either.

Yes, the facts are simple. The Bush administration exaggerated and lied the public into an unjust war that has cost us far too many lives, resources and strained diplomatic ties.

Your supposed smoking gun indicates that records were in error. So, where were all the chemicals?

During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5][6][7] Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[8] President George W. Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,[9] despite multiple dissenting opinions[10] and questions of integrity[11][12][13] about the underlying intelligence
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Just a tid bit from research for dummies.

DUMMIES?
All you have done is shown that no-one knows where the "stuff" Saddam had is todayyou find a poll done in 2011 on the iraq war, post it
there is a reason you cannot find one

now as far as GWB being the one who lied about Saddam, I hate having to do this but you leave no choice
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[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." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... 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 redefine 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." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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 ... 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." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23

Right. Which is why Bush was denied a new resolution by the UN council. You need PROOF, actual evidence of a violation. There was no such evidence and still isn't. It was bad intel or lied intel and had no basis in reality. Keep assertign that there wqas a reasoning beyond a vendetta, but all you have is a straw man argument after that based on the opinions of elected officals on what they think...their opinion.

I don't need to do any more than that to prove the war was not only unjust, unpopular and amoral. It was an international crime. Equipped with breaches of international laws as well as domestic ones. Cheney, Bush and Rumsfield, along with their accomplices int he justice dept., need to be brought up on the war crimes they are all flagerantly guilty of.

As to you first post, it is fully inaccurate and full of lies. Try being honest with yourself.

you know whats the funniest thing about calling me a liar?
NOTHING
but your calling people within the links I provide a liar

I have made no calims that has not been backed up with a link except what the people today feel about the Iraq war now that we have won it
uou cannot find one

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance—not even today—of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[117] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[117]

That remark by Bix in 03 was the straw that broke the camals back
Saddam claimed he had in his possesion these items that have never been found
Blix also made it clear Iraq was not accepting disarmament
this was 10 years after 1993 when he hqad agreed to stop, identify and destroy

you can spin it
you can call me a liar
these are not my words

American Forces Press Service

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 Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.

"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.

"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."

Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone."

"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said. "The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons."

The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform.

Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection.

There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center's report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center's report.

Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this morning.

Biographies:
Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, USA

Related Sites:
Defense Intelligence Agency
National Ground Intelligence Center

these are not my words

 

[Contumacious]

you know whats the funniest thing about calling me a liar?

That it is completely and totally true?

.

 

[JRK]

you know whats the funniest thing about calling me a liar?

That it is completely and totally true?

.

to dis agree with a man is one thing
to sit behind a key board and call him a liar is another
what is it I have said that was a lie?
If you cannot back up what you say, what does that make you?
clock is ticking

STILL WAITING
WHAT HAVE I SAID THAT WAS A LIE

HEY DUDE STILL WAITING
BACK IT UP
WHATS THIS MAKE U

Well seeing as though you have nothing to back up calling another person a liar for no reason
you are 1 of 3 on my ignore list
congrats on that, it takes a real, never mind
good luck eith being that way in life
you will need it