Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #441
did they find any weapons, you know ones that could make those mushroom clouds like Cheney claimed?
They lied to us you fool
They lied to us you fool
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
did they find any weapons, you know ones that could make those mushroom clouds like Cheney claimed?
They lied to us you fool
did they find any weapons, you know ones that could make those mushroom clouds like Cheney claimed?
They lied to us you fool
Yes. They found weapons. They just werent of the caliber and stock expected.
The biggest lie there was is that "no" weapons were found at all.
Heck, even Saddam's propaganda administer was admitting their were weapons.
Yep. They went to Syria before we attacked.
Actually the truth here is that all Republicans hate war, especially those of us who have been there. Have you checked the status of the military lately? You will be surprised...
REALLY Ollie? Where were all these Republicans who hate war when Bush and Cheney lied us into a 3 trillion dollar war in Iraq?
Ah yes, they lied...... Show us the lie........ Show us that nearly every Security agency in the world didn't agree that Saddam had WMD. Show us how Saddam never admitted that he wanted Iran to believe he had WMD. read the Duelfer report and show us where Saddam wasn't planning on rebuilding his arsenal as fast as he could....
This is all out there as fact not made up hatred and lies... All you have to do is wade through the BS and read the truth....
Such tools...........
War hasn't been declared since WWII.
War hasn't been declared since WWII.
Actually Korea.....
We still are at war with North Korea....
Yep. They went to Syria before we attacked.
Quite possible. I mean there was enough delays on us going in to give them plenty of time.
Ive never understood why the left harped on the "no weapons" when we know that's false and when it made Bush look alot worse that he didnt find those weapons.
I guess in their mind having a President who lies is worse than one who can't do his job.
War hasn't been declared since WWII.
Actually Korea.....
We still are at war with North Korea....
Yes we are. Just not actively.
the wealthy must be coddled at all costs and who better to do it than the GObP?
Actually Korea.....
We still are at war with North Korea....
Yes we are. Just not actively.
Obviously, however IMO North Korea believes we are actively at war. That's why the DMZ is so funny.... It's almost like a chess game and it's our move .
REALLY Ollie? Where were all these Republicans who hate war when Bush and Cheney lied us into a 3 trillion dollar war in Iraq?
Ah yes, they lied...... Show us the lie........ Show us that nearly every Security agency in the world didn't agree that Saddam had WMD. Show us how Saddam never admitted that he wanted Iran to believe he had WMD. read the Duelfer report and show us where Saddam wasn't planning on rebuilding his arsenal as fast as he could....
This is all out there as fact not made up hatred and lies... All you have to do is wade through the BS and read the truth....
Such tools...........
Ah Ollie, Bush's lies started before he was elected. Candidate Bush criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."
Bush never told the American people he INTENDED to invade Iraq and START a war, now did he Ollie?
BUT...his first Treasury Secretary DID tell us...
Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq - CBS News
And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.
He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.
"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."
During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."
"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."