Yes he did. CNN told us so.So Bush didn't lie.We know Iraq had chemical weapons all along because we sold them to them.
End of story.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes he did. CNN told us so.So Bush didn't lie.We know Iraq had chemical weapons all along because we sold them to them.
End of story.
Bush didn`t lie? Only 935 times he did.So Bush didn't lie.We know Iraq had chemical weapons all along because we sold them to them.
End of story.
tell that to the kurds fuckstickHere's the problem. Chemical weapons really AREN'T a weapon of mass destruction. They really don't cause that much damage unless you use a mass barrage. Even in World War I, they only accounted for 4% of fatalities. They weren't used at all in World War II.
From a practical perspective, what is your opinion of the effects of VX vs. say, Ebola?
If you had a choice, which one would you choose?
.
Well, to start with, we had Saddam's sons in Law, who told Scott Ritter and other inspectors that we had really gotten most of the WMD's.
We had invoices from all the countries that sold Saddam components, and compared them to what was destroyed or accounted for, and we knew we got most of them.
Scott Ritter? Even a Bush hater like you knows Ritter was a leftist clown determined to embarrass the Bush WH. And what would you expect "Saddam's sons in law" to claim? Seriously? And let's say that Bush had admitted the nastiest stuff that Saddam had was trucked into Syria....imagine the outcry to go get it and engage another front when we already had Iran on opposite flank. And let's get real....the reason for the invasion of Iraq was to draw in al-Qaida to fight our Military instead of our office workers in the WTC and Pentagon. They ran from us in Afghanistan so we had to draw them to us somewhere nice and flat and open....Iraq fit the bill....and we murdered them by the bushel.
"Participants in the chemical weapons discoveries said the United States suppressed knowledge of finds for multiple reasons, including that the government bristled at further acknowledgment it had been wrong. “They needed something to say that after Sept. 11 Saddam used chemical rounds,” Mr. Lampier said. “And all of this was from the pre-1991 era.”"
Ibid
Of course no one likes criticism. But some folks expect to be able to lie their way out of being held responsible when they make a mistake.
This sounds exactly like the mindset of the Liberals in the White House making the decisions which led to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi on the day & night of 9/11/12.
Liberals can not be trusted with great power. They do this shit instinctively.
Hardwiring.
That's why Mitt Romney lost.
He isn't a well practiced liar.
Don't hide behind some faux concern for "our men" when you're talking to someone that has actually been there. If you have a point regarding the risk posed by Saddam having binary-agent Sarin or Mustard weapons vs. nuclear weapons then make it.
Are you saying without the "mushroom cloud" statement you would have not supported the invasion?
Binary agents do not deteriorate in relatively short periods of time. The shells discussed in the article were every bit as lethal as they were the day they were manufactured.
Subject SHELF LIFE OF IRAQ S CW AGENTS
We know Iraq had chemical weapons all along because we sold them to them.
That may be but the punchline for the past 9 or 10 years is that there were no WMD's. Go out and ask 100 people today and 95% of them will say no WMD's.
This isnt a thread about whether we should have went or not.........its about how crooked our government is. No wonder Obama lies every day.......he got it from Bush!!!
We're getting hosed s0ns!!! They want all this partisan bickering going on while they amass more and more government power!!
Yes, without nukes there was no constitutional reason to send our men and women off to their possible deaths.i don't care....chemical weapons , whatever....they are not nukes, they have no mushroom cloud, they are no reason to send our men off to die for...period.NO, it's not the same at all....radio active nukes last for millennia, chemical and biological weapons deteriorate in relatively short periods of time.Sorry, but Gomer Bush and his henchmen/woman claimed there was an ACTIVE chemical and nuclear weapons program not a bunch of crap leftover from the 1980s. This stuff wasn`t a threat to the U.S.
That's like saying that a nuclear bomb like the ones dropped on Japan in 1945 wouldn't be a threat today because they are old.
Powell and Rice said in January of 2001 Saddam and his weapons capability were not a threat....
We also abolished 96.5% of ALL arsenal in Iraq, including chem and biological during gulf war 1, operation dessert storm...according to our military/gvt.
Binary agents do not deteriorate in relatively short periods of time. The shells discussed in the article were every bit as lethal as they were the day they were manufactured.
Subject SHELF LIFE OF IRAQ S CW AGENTS
Don't hide behind some faux concern for "our men" when you're talking to someone that has actually been there. If you have a point regarding the risk posed by Saddam having binary-agent Sarin or Mustard weapons vs. nuclear weapons then make it.
Are you saying without the "mushroom cloud" statement you would have not supported the invasion?
From a practical perspective, what is your opinion of the effects of VX vs. say, Ebola?
If you had a choice, which one would you choose?
.
It would depend what protective equipment I had. Ebola is only spread through the passing of bodily fluids.
Not that I buy for a moment that Saddam trucked his goodies to Syria when Bashir Assad was his enemy. But what you are saying is that Bush lied about where the weapons went.
And, no, invading a country that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda did not diminish Al Qaeda. IN fact, what it did do was lose most of the international sympathy we had with the rest of the world, as we kind of looked like the jackasses when there wreen't any WMD's found.
Not that I buy for a moment that Saddam trucked his goodies to Syria when Bashir Assad was his enemy. But what you are saying is that Bush lied about where the weapons went.
And, no, invading a country that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda did not diminish Al Qaeda. IN fact, what it did do was lose most of the international sympathy we had with the rest of the world, as we kind of looked like the jackasses when there wreen't any WMD's found.
Hey, I told ya what happened and why......not my duty to correct your sorry horseshit further. Just understand that when you spew your ignorant crap around folks who know better....well, you'll just get laughed at.
New York Times lead today........
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
Should tell every board member here........the government, no matter who is in charge, is lying to us every single day!!!
From a practical perspective, what is your opinion of the effects of VX vs. say, Ebola?
If you had a choice, which one would you choose?
.
It would depend what protective equipment I had. Ebola is only spread through the passing of bodily fluids.
From a practical perspective, what is your opinion of the effects of VX vs. say, Ebola?
If you had a choice, which one would you choose?
.
It would depend what protective equipment I had. Ebola is only spread through the passing of bodily fluids.
And you know this how?
-Geaux
From a practical perspective, what is your opinion of the effects of VX vs. say, Ebola?
If you had a choice, which one would you choose?
.
It would depend what protective equipment I had. Ebola is only spread through the passing of bodily fluids.
And you know this how?
-Geaux
Well, gosh, darn, Cleetus, that's what SCIENTISTS tell us. I know you don't have those down in Talking Snake Country. Where Rick Perry cut the shit out of medical spending and then wonders why his state is the one getting hit....