A "Tale of Two "LIES"???

[healthmyths]

The invasion and occupation of Iraq and the removal of Saddam created an entirely new paradigm in that region.

This includes opening to the door for Iran to expand its influence (both overtly and covertly) and the advent of new terror groups.

Before our invasion of that sovereign country there was at least a measure of geopolitical balance. Now there is anarchy.

.

Military victory occurred in less then 6 weeks.
The number one contribution to the existing problems has been proven by the following Harvard study that showed
when Americans encouraged terrorists the conflict continues today.
Tell me why these statements would NOT help and the below Traitors who HELPED by their words encourage TERRORISTS who KILLED US TROOPS as this HARVARD study shows:
The Harvard Study asked: THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The resounding answer WAS YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent following what the researchers call "high-mention weeks," like the two just before the November 2006 election.

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

 

[Tuatara]

I can't say with certainty that Bush himself lied. I have no doubt, though, that he willingly acted on highly questionable, cherry-picked evidence and made a military/geopolitical mistake of historic proportions. Is willful ignorance lying?

Since there will be no prosecutions, I guess it really doesn't matter in the end. I just hope we can play a part in cleaning up the mess we made.

.

Like Jerry Forf. Obama did not want to drag the country through a long criminal investigation. Unlike republicans milking Benghazi

I think that was Obama's first mistake. It would have been worth it. I'm sure too many other people would have gone down too.

 

[edthecynic]

The invasion and occupation of Iraq and the removal of Saddam created an entirely new paradigm in that region.

This includes opening to the door for Iran to expand its influence (both overtly and covertly) and the advent of new terror groups.

Before our invasion of that sovereign country there was at least a measure of geopolitical balance. Now there is anarchy.

.

Military victory occurred in less then 6 weeks.
The number one contribution to the existing problems has been proven by the following Harvard study that showed
when Americans encouraged terrorists the conflict continues today.
Tell me why these statements would NOT help and the below Traitors who HELPED by their words encourage TERRORISTS who KILLED US TROOPS as this HARVARD study shows:
The Harvard Study asked: THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The resounding answer WAS YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent following what the researchers call "high-mention weeks," like the two just before the November 2006 election.

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

The only terrorists emboldened by those out of context quotes were the GOP

 

[hazlnut]

The big difference between Benghazi and Bush was Bush put the country first... Obama his re-election first!

Get back on your meds.

Bush lied.

End of story.

 

[auditor0007]

Let's start with a FACT ... a Truth..... the definition of a "LIE".
As a NOUN: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
As a VERB: to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
Lie Define Lie at Dictionary.com

With those two points of reference, Is there anyone anywhere that can prove that George W. Bush
made a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive?
Is there anyone who can prove that George W. Bush "utter an untruth knowingly"???

I ask this question because the vast majority of Bush Bashers have called him a liar specifically about Iraq and WMDs.
YET!!!!!
Sunday's talk shows had Bob Woodward who said very clearly and this is the man from the liberal MSM elite!

Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors,
but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

Though it can be argued the war was a mistake, Woodward told host Chris Wallace,
"there was no lie in this that I could find."

As for President Barack Obama's decision to leave no residual force behind when American troops left Iraq in December 2011, Woodward indicated it would have been better to have left 10,000-15,000 troops behind as "an insurance policy" as military commanders suggested.

"We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

Bob Woodward Bush Didn t Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

Now in comparison to this supposedly "TRUTH".....

Benghazi and 4 deaths were caused by a video. That is the "TRUTH" Obama et.al. stated one
week after the event...... i.e. 6 weeks before the election.

ABC’s “This Week”:
MS. RICE:
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

The "TRUTH" as stated by Ms. Rice on CBS’s “Face the Nation”
MS. RICE: .... what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

NBC’s “Meet the Press”
DAVID GREGORY: ..... that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

MS. RICE: ".... But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

I ask the honest person to tell me based on the definition of a "LIE"....
i.e. KNOWINGLY making a false statement is a "LIE".

In the case of GWB.... did HE KNOW Saddam had NO WMDs but LIED to the nation?

In the case of Benghazi did Obama et.al. KNOW 6 weeks before the election that Benghazi was a planned
attack but deliberately blamed the video...i.e. LIED so as to protect Obama's war on terror image?

Another point to consider........
What personal financial, political GAIN would GWB have by Liberating Iraq?
What personal financial, political GAIN would Obama have by lying about Benghazi?

And finally which President bragged using "tactics" and "tricks" i.e. LYING about himself..."
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed."

Here is the problem with leaving troops behind. We would need to do it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, now Syria and next Iran possibly? Where after that? Are we going to need to leave 50,000 troops in every country that cannot govern itself? Keep in mind that these countries really do not want us there to begin with. We would be an occupying force, which very likely would lead to even bigger long term problems. I do understand the argument and it is not without merit, but it's not as simple as it sounds either. There is just as much merit to the opposite side of the coin.

it was a mistake leaving Iraq when we did

as predicted it left a huge vacuum

It was also a massive mistake removing Saddam Hussein from power. That country will never be able to govern itself freely, so what you are saying is that we would need to have troops there forever.

Was it a mistake to remove Kadafi, or Mubarak, and to try to remove Assad?

Or, can only "Boosh" make mistakes?[/QUOTE

The only one we removed was Saddam Hussein. We were not responsible for the removal of the others although we pretty much had to stand behind it when it happened.

 

[BlindBoo]

The big difference between Benghazi and Bush was Bush put the country first... Obama his re-election first!

I knew I'd find two lies in here.

 

[auditor0007]

Here is the problem with leaving troops behind. We would need to do it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, now Syria and next Iran possibly? Where after that? Are we going to need to leave 50,000 troops in every country that cannot govern itself? Keep in mind that these countries really do not want us there to begin with. We would be an occupying force, which very likely would lead to even bigger long term problems. I do understand the argument and it is not without merit, but it's not as simple as it sounds either. There is just as much merit to the opposite side of the coin.

it was a mistake leaving Iraq when we did

as predicted it left a huge vacuum

It was also a massive mistake removing Saddam Hussein from power. That country will never be able to govern itself freely, so what you are saying is that we would need to have troops there forever.

We've 170,000 troops after 70 years in Europe/Asia.
NO conquering military ever left right after winning.

Troops were left for US strategic purposes, not as an occupying force

--LOL

the allied forces occupied took control all nazi territory until 1955

That was ten years after a world war. How long has it been in Iraq in a war that was unwarranted to begin with?

 

[BlindBoo]

speaking of Blix

i can remember the guy in the news all the time

in one set of news footage he took the cap off a shell tip

and sniffed it

i remember thinking oh brother what have we gotten into

--LOL

i wish i could find the footage

Did you know this about Hans Blix?

In January 2002, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the major architects of the war in Iraq, in an unusual move, asked the Central Intelligence Agency to investigate the performance of Swedish diplomat and former UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix while he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997. Wolfowitz was hoping the CIA would find evidence he could use to discredit Blix for failing to find an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq during IAEA inspections there. Wolfowitz asked the CIA to investigate Blix a month before UN weapons inspectors were gearing up to return to Iraq for the first time since 1998. At the time, Wolfowitz and other hawks in the Bush administration feared that renewed inspections in Iraq would undermine their overall goal to launch a military campaign against Iraq.

CRG

doesnt make any sense

since wmd was not the only reason to rid saddam

Without WMD Iraq would not be a threat to the USA. That threat was one of two criteria Congress set for the president to decide on. The other was of course participation in 9-11.

 

[Tuatara]

speaking of Blix

i can remember the guy in the news all the time

in one set of news footage he took the cap off a shell tip

and sniffed it

i remember thinking oh brother what have we gotten into

--LOL

i wish i could find the footage

Did you know this about Hans Blix?

In January 2002, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the major architects of the war in Iraq, in an unusual move, asked the Central Intelligence Agency to investigate the performance of Swedish diplomat and former UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix while he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997. Wolfowitz was hoping the CIA would find evidence he could use to discredit Blix for failing to find an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq during IAEA inspections there. Wolfowitz asked the CIA to investigate Blix a month before UN weapons inspectors were gearing up to return to Iraq for the first time since 1998. At the time, Wolfowitz and other hawks in the Bush administration feared that renewed inspections in Iraq would undermine their overall goal to launch a military campaign against Iraq.

CRG

doesnt make any sense

since wmd was not the only reason to rid saddam

Without WMD Iraq would not be a threat to the USA. That threat was one of two criteria Congress set for the president to decide on. The other was of course participation in 9-11.

Bush and his administration never really directly tied Saddam to the 911 attacks. He only made claims that there were working ties to Al Qaeda. .He would use terms like "you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam" "there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda" "Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq" "Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases" "Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work"
They would talk about the devistating actions of 911 and then bring up Saddam in the following sentence.

This is why it showed in many polls around 2003 that many americans believed Saddam was responsible for 911. They failed to put on their BS detectors.

 

[BlindBoo]

speaking of Blix

i can remember the guy in the news all the time

in one set of news footage he took the cap off a shell tip

and sniffed it

i remember thinking oh brother what have we gotten into

--LOL

i wish i could find the footage

Did you know this about Hans Blix?

In January 2002, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the major architects of the war in Iraq, in an unusual move, asked the Central Intelligence Agency to investigate the performance of Swedish diplomat and former UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix while he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997. Wolfowitz was hoping the CIA would find evidence he could use to discredit Blix for failing to find an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq during IAEA inspections there. Wolfowitz asked the CIA to investigate Blix a month before UN weapons inspectors were gearing up to return to Iraq for the first time since 1998. At the time, Wolfowitz and other hawks in the Bush administration feared that renewed inspections in Iraq would undermine their overall goal to launch a military campaign against Iraq.

CRG

doesnt make any sense

since wmd was not the only reason to rid saddam

Without WMD Iraq would not be a threat to the USA. That threat was one of two criteria Congress set for the president to decide on. The other was of course participation in 9-11.

Bush and his administration never really directly tied Saddam to the 911 attacks. He only made claims that there were working ties to Al Qaeda. .He would use terms like "you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam" "there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda" "Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq" "Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases" "Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work"
They would talk about the devistating actions of 911 and then bring up Saddam in the following sentence.

This is why it showed in many polls around 2003 that many americans believed Saddam was responsible for 911. They failed to put on their BS detectors.

Exactly, and without WMD President Bush was 0 for 2.

 

[Brain357]

Let's start with a FACT ... a Truth..... the definition of a "LIE".
As a NOUN: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
As a VERB: to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
Lie Define Lie at Dictionary.com

With those two points of reference, Is there anyone anywhere that can prove that George W. Bush
made a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive?
Is there anyone who can prove that George W. Bush "utter an untruth knowingly"???

I ask this question because the vast majority of Bush Bashers have called him a liar specifically about Iraq and WMDs.
YET!!!!!
Sunday's talk shows had Bob Woodward who said very clearly and this is the man from the liberal MSM elite!

Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors,
but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

Though it can be argued the war was a mistake, Woodward told host Chris Wallace,
"there was no lie in this that I could find."

As for President Barack Obama's decision to leave no residual force behind when American troops left Iraq in December 2011, Woodward indicated it would have been better to have left 10,000-15,000 troops behind as "an insurance policy" as military commanders suggested.

"We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

Bob Woodward Bush Didn t Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

Now in comparison to this supposedly "TRUTH".....

Benghazi and 4 deaths were caused by a video. That is the "TRUTH" Obama et.al. stated one
week after the event...... i.e. 6 weeks before the election.

ABC’s “This Week”:
MS. RICE:
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

The "TRUTH" as stated by Ms. Rice on CBS’s “Face the Nation”
MS. RICE: .... what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

NBC’s “Meet the Press”
DAVID GREGORY: ..... that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

MS. RICE: ".... But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

I ask the honest person to tell me based on the definition of a "LIE"....
i.e. KNOWINGLY making a false statement is a "LIE".

In the case of GWB.... did HE KNOW Saddam had NO WMDs but LIED to the nation?

In the case of Benghazi did Obama et.al. KNOW 6 weeks before the election that Benghazi was a planned
attack but deliberately blamed the video...i.e. LIED so as to protect Obama's war on terror image?

Another point to consider........
What personal financial, political GAIN would GWB have by Liberating Iraq?
What personal financial, political GAIN would Obama have by lying about Benghazi?

And finally which President bragged using "tactics" and "tricks" i.e. LYING about himself..."
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed."

Skeptical? Then he shouldn't have brought us to war. He should have been sure. Skeptical makes him look worse, i always thought he was just wrong.

 

[jon_berzerk]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

it was a mistake leaving Iraq when we did

as predicted it left a huge vacuum

It was also a massive mistake removing Saddam Hussein from power. That country will never be able to govern itself freely, so what you are saying is that we would need to have troops there forever.

We've 170,000 troops after 70 years in Europe/Asia.
NO conquering military ever left right after winning.

Troops were left for US strategic purposes, not as an occupying force

--LOL

the allied forces occupied took control all nazi territory until 1955

That was ten years after a world war. How long has it been in Iraq in a war that was unwarranted to begin with?

we are still in many places in Europe since the the big one ww2

 

[jon_berzerk]

speaking of Blix

i can remember the guy in the news all the time

in one set of news footage he took the cap off a shell tip

and sniffed it

i remember thinking oh brother what have we gotten into

--LOL

i wish i could find the footage

Did you know this about Hans Blix?

In January 2002, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the major architects of the war in Iraq, in an unusual move, asked the Central Intelligence Agency to investigate the performance of Swedish diplomat and former UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix while he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997. Wolfowitz was hoping the CIA would find evidence he could use to discredit Blix for failing to find an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq during IAEA inspections there. Wolfowitz asked the CIA to investigate Blix a month before UN weapons inspectors were gearing up to return to Iraq for the first time since 1998. At the time, Wolfowitz and other hawks in the Bush administration feared that renewed inspections in Iraq would undermine their overall goal to launch a military campaign against Iraq.

CRG

doesnt make any sense

since wmd was not the only reason to rid saddam

Without WMD Iraq would not be a threat to the USA. That threat was one of two criteria Congress set for the president to decide on. The other was of course participation in 9-11.

saddam was a state supporter of terrorism

 

[Brain357]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It was also a massive mistake removing Saddam Hussein from power. That country will never be able to govern itself freely, so what you are saying is that we would need to have troops there forever.

We've 170,000 troops after 70 years in Europe/Asia.
NO conquering military ever left right after winning.

Troops were left for US strategic purposes, not as an occupying force

--LOL

the allied forces occupied took control all nazi territory until 1955

That was ten years after a world war. How long has it been in Iraq in a war that was unwarranted to begin with?

we are still in many places in Europe since the the big one ww2

How many troops dying in Europe?

 

[Brain357]

speaking of Blix

i can remember the guy in the news all the time

in one set of news footage he took the cap off a shell tip

and sniffed it

i remember thinking oh brother what have we gotten into

--LOL

i wish i could find the footage

Did you know this about Hans Blix?

In January 2002, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the major architects of the war in Iraq, in an unusual move, asked the Central Intelligence Agency to investigate the performance of Swedish diplomat and former UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix while he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997. Wolfowitz was hoping the CIA would find evidence he could use to discredit Blix for failing to find an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq during IAEA inspections there. Wolfowitz asked the CIA to investigate Blix a month before UN weapons inspectors were gearing up to return to Iraq for the first time since 1998. At the time, Wolfowitz and other hawks in the Bush administration feared that renewed inspections in Iraq would undermine their overall goal to launch a military campaign against Iraq.

CRG

doesnt make any sense

since wmd was not the only reason to rid saddam

Without WMD Iraq would not be a threat to the USA. That threat was one of two criteria Congress set for the president to decide on. The other was of course participation in 9-11.

saddam was a state supporter of terrorism

Which ones?

 

[jon_berzerk]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We've 170,000 troops after 70 years in Europe/Asia.
NO conquering military ever left right after winning.

Troops were left for US strategic purposes, not as an occupying force

--LOL

the allied forces occupied took control all nazi territory until 1955

That was ten years after a world war. How long has it been in Iraq in a war that was unwarranted to begin with?

we are still in many places in Europe since the the big one ww2

How many troops dying in Europe?

all wars are different

in time it was getting quite peaceful in Iraq

 

[jon_berzerk]

speaking of Blix

i can remember the guy in the news all the time

in one set of news footage he took the cap off a shell tip

and sniffed it

i remember thinking oh brother what have we gotten into

--LOL

i wish i could find the footage

Did you know this about Hans Blix?

In January 2002, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the major architects of the war in Iraq, in an unusual move, asked the Central Intelligence Agency to investigate the performance of Swedish diplomat and former UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix while he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997. Wolfowitz was hoping the CIA would find evidence he could use to discredit Blix for failing to find an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq during IAEA inspections there. Wolfowitz asked the CIA to investigate Blix a month before UN weapons inspectors were gearing up to return to Iraq for the first time since 1998. At the time, Wolfowitz and other hawks in the Bush administration feared that renewed inspections in Iraq would undermine their overall goal to launch a military campaign against Iraq.

CRG

doesnt make any sense

since wmd was not the only reason to rid saddam

Without WMD Iraq would not be a threat to the USA. That threat was one of two criteria Congress set for the president to decide on. The other was of course participation in 9-11.

saddam was a state supporter of terrorism

Which ones?

terrorist ones

 

[Brain357]

Did you know this about Hans Blix?

CRG

doesnt make any sense

since wmd was not the only reason to rid saddam

Without WMD Iraq would not be a threat to the USA. That threat was one of two criteria Congress set for the president to decide on. The other was of course participation in 9-11.

saddam was a state supporter of terrorism

Which ones?

terrorist ones

Very specific.

 

[jon_berzerk]

doesnt make any sense

since wmd was not the only reason to rid saddam

Without WMD Iraq would not be a threat to the USA. That threat was one of two criteria Congress set for the president to decide on. The other was of course participation in 9-11.

saddam was a state supporter of terrorism

Which ones?

terrorist ones

Very specific.

this has been gone over thousands and thousands of times

you folks can never seem to come to grasps that Saddam was a very very bad person

who sponsored terrorists

even payed the families of suicide bombers

 

[Brain357]

Without WMD Iraq would not be a threat to the USA. That threat was one of two criteria Congress set for the president to decide on. The other was of course participation in 9-11.

saddam was a state supporter of terrorism

Which ones?

terrorist ones

Very specific.

this has been gone over thousands and thousands of times

you folks can never seem to come to grasps that Saddam was a very very bad person

who sponsored terrorists

even payed the families of suicide bombers

And compared to ISIS he doesn't look so bad. Was he being bad to people like ISIS?

Please link his terrorist connections.