Another outrageous liberal Myth, top 5

[OohPooPahDoo]

Between Dec 1, 2008 and March 30th, 2010.

Then again from Nov 1st, 2010 to June 30th, 2011.

Tarp. the original intent save wall street from collapsing
Without it, there is no recovery

Why do you say that? Wallstreet hasn't done crap but fill their own pockets. It is banks that lend to businesses and consumers.

????
What do you think a REIT is?

 

[Neotrotsky]

ObamaCare will work as intended

should be the number one lie

 

[JRK]

lied to?
who lied to you?
where do you want to start?
DOD: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria « Sister Toldjah
over 500 he was not suppose to have, period
part of the UN sanctions he ignored


What kind of support has Iraq given terrorists?
Safe haven, training, and financial support. In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including:
Abu Nidal, who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organization responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people.
Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas, who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Laurocruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces April 15.
Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000.
Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is on the FBI's "most wanted terrorists" list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and it channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In April 2002, Iraq increased the amount of such payments from $10,000 to $25,000. Experts say that by promoting Israeli-Palestinian violence, Saddam may have hoped to make it harder for the United States to win Arab support for a campaign against Iraq.

IRAQ: Iraqi Ties to Terrorism - Council on Foreign Relations

It also seems easy for everyone to go back and point fingers now, but why stop here if you feel this way?
"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 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 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." S
- 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 Sens. 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 invigorated 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, December 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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the 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 weap ons 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. 2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???

Most Democrats voted against the war. Colin Powell sold the war to the world at the UN with fake pictures of non-existent WMD's.

Yes we were lied to.

But he quoted the reputable blogger, Sister Toldjah! Surely you're not doubting the integrity of a blogger on the interwebs?

Long before Powell went before the UN to claim that Iraq had aluminum tubes for enriching uranium, the Bush administration had been told in no uncertain terms that the tubes were not for enriching aluminum - but they let Powell say it anyway.

The information as well a the quotes are far more accurate than the ones CBS used in 2004 when it came to GWB and his military record
Do you have a link that that clearly states for a fact there was ZERO information about the Aluminum tubes and only information they did not exist?

Do I need to, never mind
lets just do it
Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

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

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

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 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

 

[8537]

Most Democrats voted against the war. Colin Powell sold the war to the world at the UN with fake pictures of non-existent WMD's.

Yes we were lied to.

But he quoted the reputable blogger, Sister Toldjah! Surely you're not doubting the integrity of a blogger on the interwebs?

Long before Powell went before the UN to claim that Iraq had aluminum tubes for enriching uranium, the Bush administration had been told in no uncertain terms that the tubes were not for enriching aluminum - but they let Powell say it anyway.

The information as well a the quotes are far more accurate than the ones CBS used in 2004 when it came to GWB and his military record
Do you have a link that that clearly states for a fact there was ZERO information about the Aluminum tubes and only information they did not exist?

Oh, you read my post wrong. The aluminum tubes absolutely existed. There were lots of them! They just weren't used to enrich uranium.

 

[JRK]

But he quoted the reputable blogger, Sister Toldjah! Surely you're not doubting the integrity of a blogger on the interwebs?

Long before Powell went before the UN to claim that Iraq had aluminum tubes for enriching uranium, the Bush administration had been told in no uncertain terms that the tubes were not for enriching aluminum - but they let Powell say it anyway.

The information as well a the quotes are far more accurate than the ones CBS used in 2004 when it came to GWB and his military record
Do you have a link that that clearly states for a fact there was ZERO information about the Aluminum tubes and only information they did not exist?

Oh, you read my post wrong. The aluminum tubes absolutely existed. There were lots of them! They just weren't used to enrich uranium.

There comes a point in time with Iraq that you either supported it or you did not

March 2003
Days 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 2003
A 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 2004
An 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]

some polls I recall where closer to 70% approval

I have a real issue with those who changed there minds and act like most all of this stuff was talked about as well as much of the material that was being claimed to be there being moved, In front of the UN it was talked about
Powell raises the banner for war but the world remains divided | World news | The Guardian
Straight up?
Iraq was a must
look at a map of the region
also as your self why it took days in 91 and 8 years in 03-11?
we were not fighting Iraqis this time

 

[8537]

The information as well a the quotes are far more accurate than the ones CBS used in 2004 when it came to GWB and his military record
Do you have a link that that clearly states for a fact there was ZERO information about the Aluminum tubes and only information they did not exist?

Oh, you read my post wrong. The aluminum tubes absolutely existed. There were lots of them! They just weren't used to enrich uranium.

There comes a point in time with Iraq that you either supported it or you did not

March 2003
Days 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 2003
A 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 2004
An 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]

some polls I recall where closer to 70% approval

I have a real issue with those who changed there minds and act like most all of this stuff was talked about as well as much of the material that was being claimed to be there being moved, In front of the UN it was talked about
Powell raises the banner for war but the world remains divided | World news | The Guardian
Straight up?
Iraq was a must
look at a map of the region
also as your self why it took days in 91 and 8 years in 03-11?
we were not fighting Iraqis this time

So, before the war the populace was split - as were the Dems in office. (Republicans, of course, support any war almost carte blanche, unless a Dem is involved).

As to why it took days: This time around it only took days as well - we won the war in a very, very brief period. The difference is that this time we drove to Baghdad, toppled the government and stuck around to rebuild. The resistance from the Iraqi army was no greater this time than last - we had a far smaller force and still got it done in days.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Most Democrats voted against the war. Colin Powell sold the war to the world at the UN with fake pictures of non-existent WMD's. Yes we were lied to."

Why let the facts get in the way of reality...right, Nycarbineer? If you combine the Senate and House, 112 Democrats voted for the war. Why? Because a compelling case was presented to them by not only our intelligence services but numerous other intelligence services that Iraq was attempting to obtain uranium in order to build nuclear weapons. You accuse Powell of "lying" yet if you read the Downing Street memos ( the top secret British memos that were leaked before the invasion) it's quite apparent that both the British and the US were concerned about Saddam using the WMD that he had used against the Iranians and the Kurds against us as we invaded Iraq. The fact that no WMD were found when we invaded does not mean that none existed since quite obviously they did. Not finding WMD means one of two things...either Saddam exhausted his supply or that he managed to hide them or smuggle them to a friendly country before we took over Iraq.

I know that the "non existent" WMD thing is a favorite talking point of liberals but when it is examined by anyone who isn't wearing partisan blinders the whole "lie" thing becomes a rather laughable premise to make.

 

[8537]

"Most Democrats voted against the war. Colin Powell sold the war to the world at the UN with fake pictures of non-existent WMD's. Yes we were lied to."

Why let the facts get in the way of reality...right, Nycarbineer? If you combine the Senate and House, 112 Democrats voted for the war.

So Carb was right - most Dems voted against the Iraq war. Thanks for clearing that up.

Now if only the Republican had listened we wouldn't have invaded.

 

[BlindBoo]

this stupidity is the result of Fox news.

when you have a propaganda network that spews lies in place of news you get a segment of the population that can no longer tell truth from fiction.

This segment of the population is killing American democracy

It's hard to even try to converse with someone who has been lied to so completely.

I'm amazed that there is a segment of Fox watchers that still believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that he was training al-Qaeda and was in some part responsible for 9/11.


Very scary stuff indeed.

lied to?
who lied to you?
where do you want to start?
DOD: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria « Sister Toldjah
over 500 he was not suppose to have, period
part of the UN sanctions he ignored


What kind of support has Iraq given terrorists?
Safe haven, training, and financial support. In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including:
Abu Nidal, who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organization responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people.
Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas, who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Laurocruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces April 15.
Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000.
Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is on the FBI's "most wanted terrorists" list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and it channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In April 2002, Iraq increased the amount of such payments from $10,000 to $25,000. Experts say that by promoting Israeli-Palestinian violence, Saddam may have hoped to make it harder for the United States to win Arab support for a campaign against Iraq.

IRAQ: Iraqi Ties to Terrorism - Council on Foreign Relations

It also seems easy for everyone to go back and point fingers now, but why stop here if you feel this way?
"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 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 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." S
- 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 Sens. 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 invigorated 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, December 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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the 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 weap ons 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. 2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???

\

From your article:

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.

FOXNews.com - Report: No Iraq WMDs Made After '91 - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

The Bush administration invaded Iraq in March 2003 on the grounds that its WMD programs posed a threat to American national security.

In his report, Duelfer concluded that Saddam's Iraq had no stockpiles of the banned weapons, but he said he found signs of idle programs that Saddam could have revived once international attention waned.

It appears that he did not vigorously pursue those programs after the inspectors left," a U.S. official said on condition of anonymity, ahead of the report's Wednesday afternoon release by the CIA.

U.S. officials also said the report shows Saddam was much farther away from a nuclear weapons program in 2003 than he was between 1991 and 1993; there is no evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda exchanged weapons; and there is no evidence that Al Qaeda and Iraq shared information, technology or personnel in developing weapons

 

[rightwinger]

"Most Democrats voted against the war. Colin Powell sold the war to the world at the UN with fake pictures of non-existent WMD's. Yes we were lied to."

Why let the facts get in the way of reality...right, Nycarbineer? If you combine the Senate and House, 112 Democrats voted for the war. Why? Because a compelling case was presented to them by not only our intelligence services but numerous other intelligence services that Iraq was attempting to obtain uranium in order to build nuclear weapons. You accuse Powell of "lying" yet if you read the Downing Street memos ( the top secret British memos that were leaked before the invasion) it's quite apparent that both the British and the US were concerned about Saddam using the WMD that he had used against the Iranians and the Kurds against us as we invaded Iraq. The fact that no WMD were found when we invaded does not mean that none existed since quite obviously they did. Not finding WMD means one of two things...either Saddam exhausted his supply or that he managed to hide them or smuggle them to a friendly country before we took over Iraq.

I know that the "non existent" WMD thing is a favorite talking point of liberals but when it is examined by anyone who isn't wearing partisan blinders the whole "lie" thing becomes a rather laughable premise to make.

First off. The majority of Democrats voted against going to war with Iraq. That is a fact. Those who voted in favor, like Hillary Clinton, did so because they were afraid of being called un-patriotic in post 9-11 America. They paid a price for it in the voting booth

No there were no WMDs....there were no WMDs.....there were no WMDs

What there was, was bogus intelligence that overstated some inconsequential claims while it covered up intelligence that.....There were no WMDs

UN Inspectors begged Bush to hold off the invasion because, if given a few more weeks they could prove.....There were no WMDs

Your claim that Saddam could have used them or smuggled them out of the country is lame. He could have hid the hardware but he never could have hid the paper trail. The US poured over all records and all correspondence looking for evidence of WMDs. There were no procurement documents, no shipping documents, no reports, no orders, no inventories, no test reports....Nothing
No Iraqi scientist, technician even shipping clerk came forward to report that they had been involved with WMDs....as much as the US tried to bribe them to come forward with information

Why???? Because there were no WMDs

 

[rightwinger]

"Most Democrats voted against the war. Colin Powell sold the war to the world at the UN with fake pictures of non-existent WMD's. Yes we were lied to."

Why let the facts get in the way of reality...right, Nycarbineer? If you combine the Senate and House, 112 Democrats voted for the war.

So Carb was right - most Dems voted against the Iraq war. Thanks for clearing that up.

Now if only the Republican had listened we wouldn't have invaded.

If Bush had listened to Hans Blix, we never would have invaded. What the hell did he know? He was just some foreign, intellectual weapons inspector who didn't understand that the smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud

 

[Oldstyle]

"So Carb was right - most Dems voted against the Iraq war. Thanks for clearing that up"

The Democrats that voted against the war, were pretty much the same block of Democrats that voted against EVERYTHING that George W. Bush proposed. The fact that 111 of them voted FOR the war tells you that a compelling argument was presented that Iraq was a danger because of their nuclear ambitions.

 

[8537]

"So Carb was right - most Dems voted against the Iraq war. Thanks for clearing that up"

The Democrats that voted against the war, were pretty much the same block of Democrats that voted against EVERYTHING that George W. Bush proposed. The fact that 111 of them voted FOR the war tells you that a compelling argument was presented that Iraq was a danger because of their nuclear ambitions.

The fact that more than 111 of them voted against the war tells you it was stupid, wasteful decision to go to war with Iraq.

or, you could just look at the results.

as for a "compelling argument"? Sure, Powell and Rummie made some compelling claims - like Aluminum tubes for enriching uranium, stockpiles of WMD's "east and north of Tikrit", mobile WMD labs and drones capable of delivering WMD's. Of course, those weren't true.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Your claim that Saddam could have used them or smuggled them out of the country is lame. He could have hid the hardware but he never could have hid the paper trail. The US poured over all records and all correspondence looking for evidence of WMDs. There were no procurement documents, no shipping documents, no reports, no orders, no inventories, no test reports....Nothing
No Iraqi scientist, technician even shipping clerk came forward to report that they had been involved with WMDs....as much as the US tried to bribe them to come forward with information"


If there were no WMD in Iraq...as you maintain...then perhaps you'd like to explain what it was that Saddam Hussein used against both the Iranians and the Kurds? Did you "miss" that somehow?

Perhaps you'd also like to explain why Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake uranium in Africa? Or didn't you get the memo that Joe Wilson admitted he was wrong about that?

I suppose you think that the Libyan nuclear program that was hidden out in the desert and totally missed by UN inspectors doesn't prove quite readily that UN inspectors are next to useless when it comes to preventing countries like Libya, Iraq and Iran from trying to build nuclear weapons?

 

[Oldstyle]

What's laughable to me is that Iraq actually USED WMD against the Iranians and the Kurds...yet you would have us believe that they never possessed them.

 

[8537]

What's laughable to me is that Iraq actually USED WMD against the Iranians and the Kurds...yet you would have us believe that they never possessed them.

Nobody is claiming Iraq never possessed WMD.

What is clear, obvious and factual is that Iraq did NOT possess working WMD's in any significant amount in 2003. They did not possess drones capable of delivering WMD's. They did not possess mobile weapons labs. They did not possess aluminum tubes specifically for enriching uranium. And they did not possess "thousand of pounds" of WMD's.

 

[JRK]

"Most Democrats voted against the war. Colin Powell sold the war to the world at the UN with fake pictures of non-existent WMD's. Yes we were lied to."

Why let the facts get in the way of reality...right, Nycarbineer? If you combine the Senate and House, 112 Democrats voted for the war. Why? Because a compelling case was presented to them by not only our intelligence services but numerous other intelligence services that Iraq was attempting to obtain uranium in order to build nuclear weapons. You accuse Powell of "lying" yet if you read the Downing Street memos ( the top secret British memos that were leaked before the invasion) it's quite apparent that both the British and the US were concerned about Saddam using the WMD that he had used against the Iranians and the Kurds against us as we invaded Iraq. The fact that no WMD were found when we invaded does not mean that none existed since quite obviously they did. Not finding WMD means one of two things...either Saddam exhausted his supply or that he managed to hide them or smuggle them to a friendly country before we took over Iraq.

I know that the "non existent" WMD thing is a favorite talking point of liberals but when it is examined by anyone who isn't wearing partisan blinders the whole "lie" thing becomes a rather laughable premise to make.

First off. The majority of Democrats voted against going to war with Iraq. That is a fact. Those who voted in favor, like Hillary Clinton, did so because they were afraid of being called un-patriotic in post 9-11 America. They paid a price for it in the voting booth

No there were no WMDs....there were no WMDs.....there were no WMDs

What there was, was bogus intelligence that overstated some inconsequential claims while it covered up intelligence that.....There were no WMDs

UN Inspectors begged Bush to hold off the invasion because, if given a few more weeks they could prove.....There were no WMDs

Your claim that Saddam could have used them or smuggled them out of the country is lame. He could have hid the hardware but he never could have hid the paper trail. The US poured over all records and all correspondence looking for evidence of WMDs. There were no procurement documents, no shipping documents, no reports, no orders, no inventories, no test reports....Nothing
No Iraqi scientist, technician even shipping clerk came forward to report that they had been involved with WMDs....as much as the US tried to bribe them to come forward with information

Why???? Because there were no WMDs

No WMDs?
According to the DOD your wrong

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

By Samantha L. Quigley
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:

Also 21 voted for it
I never claimed anything different
It was a bipartisan agreement, PERIOD

 

[8537]

"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."

 

[Oldstyle]

Let's look at this logically...I know that's hard for some of you but let try anyways...

Saddam has WMD that he uses against the Iranians and the Kurds. That is indisputable. After the first Gulf war he listed stockpiles of chemical weapons that he still possessed.

So what you want me to believe is that a man like Saddam destroyed his WMD's? Voluntarily? Is that what you're trying to sell me? Because I've got to tell you...THAT is about as far fetched a concept as I've ever heard. Men like Saddam don't destroy weapons. Men like Saddam seek to develop MORE weapons to add to what they already have. That is the reason that Iraqi agents were in Africa trying to buy yellow cake uranium.

 

[rightwinger]

"Most Democrats voted against the war. Colin Powell sold the war to the world at the UN with fake pictures of non-existent WMD's. Yes we were lied to."

Why let the facts get in the way of reality...right, Nycarbineer? If you combine the Senate and House, 112 Democrats voted for the war. Why? Because a compelling case was presented to them by not only our intelligence services but numerous other intelligence services that Iraq was attempting to obtain uranium in order to build nuclear weapons. You accuse Powell of "lying" yet if you read the Downing Street memos ( the top secret British memos that were leaked before the invasion) it's quite apparent that both the British and the US were concerned about Saddam using the WMD that he had used against the Iranians and the Kurds against us as we invaded Iraq. The fact that no WMD were found when we invaded does not mean that none existed since quite obviously they did. Not finding WMD means one of two things...either Saddam exhausted his supply or that he managed to hide them or smuggle them to a friendly country before we took over Iraq.

I know that the "non existent" WMD thing is a favorite talking point of liberals but when it is examined by anyone who isn't wearing partisan blinders the whole "lie" thing becomes a rather laughable premise to make.

First off. The majority of Democrats voted against going to war with Iraq. That is a fact. Those who voted in favor, like Hillary Clinton, did so because they were afraid of being called un-patriotic in post 9-11 America. They paid a price for it in the voting booth

No there were no WMDs....there were no WMDs.....there were no WMDs

What there was, was bogus intelligence that overstated some inconsequential claims while it covered up intelligence that.....There were no WMDs

UN Inspectors begged Bush to hold off the invasion because, if given a few more weeks they could prove.....There were no WMDs

Your claim that Saddam could have used them or smuggled them out of the country is lame. He could have hid the hardware but he never could have hid the paper trail. The US poured over all records and all correspondence looking for evidence of WMDs. There were no procurement documents, no shipping documents, no reports, no orders, no inventories, no test reports....Nothing
No Iraqi scientist, technician even shipping clerk came forward to report that they had been involved with WMDs....as much as the US tried to bribe them to come forward with information

Why???? Because there were no WMDs

No WMDs?
According to the DOD your wrong

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

By Samantha L. Quigley
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:

Also 21 voted for it
I never claimed anything different
It was a bipartisan agreement, PERIOD

You misunderstand what a weapon of mass destruction is..

First off...It has to be capable of MASS DESTRUCTION

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

Those washed up, obsolete, rusting shells were no threat to anyone and definitely no justification for going to war