Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

Stability in the region after 1990 until what? 27045152

Because Saddam was a threat to the region, peace and security...do you not recall he invaded his neighbhors>? Used WMDs against his own people?

I asked you this question:

What The fuck were AMERICAN TROOPS DOING IN IRAQ in the first god and Pope damned place? Can you tell me that?

I’m asking you again because I know it is a historical fact that when Saddam invaded his neighbor ( Kuwait) President Bush assembled a broad coalition under authority of United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 which was adopted on 29 November 1990. And Iraq’s army was driven out of Kuwait within months and no American Soldiers marched into Bagdad. None were left there from that in 2009. I know because I supported the President!s handling of that threat to our national security at the time. It was done well.

When SADDAM used WMDs it was before the First GULF WAR and he may have gotten them from us but the point is moot to this discussion.

So I’ll ask again: In 2009 not 1990, what the fuck were AMERICAN TROOPS DOING IN IRAQ in the first god and Pope damned place? Can you tell me that?

The Pope is a clue perhaps it will jog your memory.

 

[surada]

Stability in the region after 1990 until what? 27045152

Because Saddam was a threat to the region, peace and security...do you not recall he invaded his neighbhors>? Used WMDs against his own people?

I asked you this question:

What The fuck were AMERICAN TROOPS DOING IN IRAQ in the first god and Pope damned place? Can you tell me that?

I’m asking you again because I know it is a historical fact that when Saddam invaded his neighbor ( Kuwait) President Bush assembled a broad coalition under authority of United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 which was adopted on 29 November 1990. And Iraq’s army was driven out of Kuwait within months and no American Soldiers marched into Bagdad. None were left there from that in 2009. I know because I supported the President!s handling of that threat to our national security at the time. It was done well.

When SADDAM used WMDs it was before the First GULF WAR and he may have gotten them from us but the point is moot to this discussion.

So I’ll ask again: In 2009 not 1990, what the fuck were AMERICAN TROOPS DOING IN IRAQ in the first god and Pope damned place? Can you tell me that?

The Pope is a clue perhaps it will jog your memory.

Cheney was hired by Halliburton to lobby his friends in government to lift sanctions against Iraq, Libya and the Stans.. He failed except for Liibya. I think Cheney had something to prove.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Saddam wasn't a threat to his neighbors..

Further to that point in March 2003 There were an Unprecedented 200 UN inspectors in side Iraq peacefully searching for WMD.

The region with respect to Iraq was as stable as it ever had been since 1990.

And little discussed in DECEMBER 2002 AMIR Al SAADI IN NYC publicly offered George Bush on SADDAM HUSSEIN’s behalf to allow the CIA and FBI And US MILITARY into Iraq to help UN inspectors find WMD There. The response from the Bush ADMIN was we will see you in Baghdad (with shock and awe)

 

[surada]

Saddam wasn't a threat to his neighbors..

Further to that point in March 2003 There were an Unprecedented 200 UN inspectors in side Iraq peacefully searching for WMD.

The region with respect to Iraq was as stable as it ever had been since 1990.

And little discussed in DECEMBER 2002 AMIR Al SAADI IN NYC publicly offered George Bush on SADDAM HUSSEIN’s behalf to allow the CIA and FBI And US MILITARY into Iraq to help UN inspectors find WMD There. The response from the Bush ADMIN was we will see you in Baghdad (with shock and awe)

In 1997 and 1998 the Brits created Operation Mass Appeal to sell the invasion of Iraq. Sir Derek Plumbly was put in charge. They scoured the news and the internet for anything negative about Iraq.

Remember the Booze Wars in Arabia in November 2000? They really botched that.. and tried to make if look like the Palestinians were setting off car bombs in Arabia.. Instead they just blew up other citizens from the UK.. and ended up making complete fools of themselves.

With that in mind I think there was some level of agreement with Bibi's Clean Break Strategy even before Bush was elected.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Biden voted for the war, Chuck and nancy too

You realize that about 40% of the Democrats in the House and the majority of Democratic Senators voted to authorize the Iraq War as well, right?

that is an incomplete assessment thereby making your statements only half true. Democrats some Democrats seeking to address President Bush’s decision to get a UN resolution giving Saddam Hussein one last chance to comply Voted as all of them stated at the time to authorize the use of force “if necessary”

Do you agree that is an undeniable historical fact?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What they said then was that Iraq was a necessary war in order to get advantage in the war on terror.

and that my friend was American and European conservatives being dumber than a damn door knob.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Iraq was the biggest exporter of terror, including Iran until Saddam was forced from power.

That is a precisely ignorant statement coming two years after the 9/11 attack which had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein at all.

 

[surada]

A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%. They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.

I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq. I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.

Even a few years ago these people wouldn't admit that the war was a huge failure.

Now these pathetic liars try to act like they were against the war all along, that is how pathetic Trumpers are. These people don't even know what they support or oppose, they wait for Foxnews to tell them what to think, and then just go with it...

Republican attitudes on Iraq trip up GOP candidates

Was the Iraq war the right thing to do or the wrong thing? Most Americans answered one way; most Republicans answered another.

www.msnbc.com

You realize that about 40% of the Democrats in the House and the majority of Democratic Senators voted to authorize the Iraq War as well, right?

Don't get me wrong. I don't like neocons either, but it's not like the Republicans did this on their own.

Cheney cooked the intelligence. I just couldn't believe the profound ignorance on both sides of the aisle.

Well, that should tell us how much we should trust the intelligence agencies in general. They're political entities, not fact-finding agencies. It's the way that the IRS, ATF, and DOJ have become as well.

I used to know all the CIA guys who worked in KSA. They were engineers, Arabists, most were veterans and patriots. The French have always had the best intel on the ME.

 

[struth]

yeah i posted them for you already

WHAT IS THEM? there is only one:

If peaceful means fails Bush is authorized to
defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

here Is the AUMF:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Obviously you didn't read the AUMF or my link:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

President Bush and House Leaders agreed on a resolution to authorize force against Iraq. The President believes such a resolution will make available the tools that he needs to deal seriously with the threat that Saddam Hussein poses.

web.archive.org

Here are some of the issues:
'

The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[3][4]

• Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
• Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
• Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
• Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
• Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
• Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
• Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
• The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
• Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The Gulf States didn't fear Saddam.. They offered him sanctuary right up to the invasion.

They opposed the invasion of Iraq to include oilmen, diplomats, Arabs, historians and military brass. They knew war would put Iran in the catbird seat. .. and they supported the Dual Containment Policy of the previous 20 years.

Iraq didn't pay a bounty to suicide bombers.. They supported families who suffered losses under the Zionists.

Many Gulf states certainly did.....you know the ones he invaded for example.

I am sure many states offered him a place, if he would leave power....that would have avoided the war all together if he volunteered to do that.

After the success of Bush's polices and the rise of what seemed to be a democracy in the heart of the ME, we saw the surrounding Gulf States see a growing rise of revolution in their own countries where the people wanted Govt reform, and a more democractic regime. Had we had real leaders in Washington, instead of the misfits of Obama, Xiden and Clinton we might have seen something real special grow out of the middle east and Arab World...instead we got a lock down by the Iranian Govt, death....and an even more powerful leading state sponsor of terror....WMDs being used by the Syrian Govt against it's own people, and a partnership with Putin, a return to the slave trade in Libya and dead soldiers and an Amb.

LOLOL.. Are you talking about Arabia, the Emirates and Kuwait? They warned the US NOT to invade even though Iraq was crippled by 2 decades of war and sanctons.

The only way to stop the Arab Sping in Libya would have been a huge peacekeeping force. You all have tried to reinvent Gadaffi.. He was a pompous, ignorant Bedouin boy who had feared Libyans for 40 years.. His troops, police force and body guards were all foreign nationals.

We shouldn't of stopped the Arab Spring...that's the issue, we should of been supporting democractic change all across the middle east.

International reactions to the prelude to the Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

" Pre-war, Saudi Arabia's public position had been one of neutrality in the conflict; worldwide media reported that, despite numerous American attempts, Saudi Arabia would not offer the American military any use of its land as a staging ground for the invasion of Iraq. In an interview, Prince Saud Alfaysal, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister when asked whether Saudi Arabia would allow more US troops to be placed on Saudi soil, the foreign minister replied, "under the present circumstances with no proof that there is a threat imminent from Iraq, I do not think Saudi Arabia will join in".[38] This was later explained to have been a public front, as Saudi Arabia, as well as Kuwait, was actually one of the most important allies in terms of offering coalition soldiers its land, including military bases. It was also eventually learned that a high-ranking Saudi prince had been at the White House on the day that the Iraq war began, and Bush administration officials told the prince to alert his government that the initial phase of the war had begun, hours before missiles first landed in Baghdad. Officially, Saudi Arabia wished to see Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath regime go, but feared the aftermath.[ "

Iraq and Kuwait have been fighting over an oil field since I was a kid. Saudi Arabia had NO beef with Iraq.. Saddam was secular and leaned towards the Sunni.

Cheney lied to King Fahd about Iraqi troops amassing on the Saudi border. Saddam never conducted a war on Arabia. He lobbed a few Scuds on the kingdom, but did no damage.

Abdullah and Salman knew Cheney was lying but couldn't convince King Fahd.

Oral History - Richard Cheney | The Gulf War | FRONTLINE | PBS

Oral History - Richard Cheney | The Gulf War | FRONTLINE | PBS

Cheney: I told King Fahd that the Iraqis were amassed on his border and we briefed him on the intelligence in terms of the size of the force that the Iraqis had already used in Kuwait.

According to the quote, SA was working with us to out Saddam.

SA was one of the main reasons we got involved with outing Saddam, as they invited us in the First Gulf War in 91

 

[struth]

Why were we even fucking even there? 27044688

what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq..

At the time he was IN FACT leaving a free and stable Iraq although stable as in ‘ relatively stable’ compared to what? Its the word “free” in that statement that you don’t comprehend or recognize its significance that makes you a liar besides the lie that us so obvious if it had teeth it would bite you.

But first why was Obama confronted with dealing with the necessity of withdrawing 160,000 ground troops from Iraq at the very same time being confronted with the worst period of global economic instability in the world since the Great Depression? What The fuck were AMERICAN TROOPS DOING IN IRAQ in the first god and Pope damned place? Can you tell me that?

Because Saddam was a threat to the region, peace and security...do you not recall he invaded his neighbhors>? Used WMDs against his own people? Geez...do you not recall the 90s at all?

Have you ever been to Iraq or the Gulf states?

Saddam wasn't a threat to his neighbors.. and as for the 1st Gulf war.. The US envoy was basically giving Saddam permission to invade Kuwait.

I haven't...

But you are incorrect, SA in fact was one of the main reasons we got in the first Gulf War, as they saw Saddam as a threat. Moreover, he literally invaded at least two of his neighbors...Iran and Kuwait.

Moreover, the entire world saw Saddam as a threat due to his WMDs, and quest for nukes

 

[struth]

Biden voted for the war, Chuck and nancy too

You realize that about 40% of the Democrats in the House and the majority of Democratic Senators voted to authorize the Iraq War as well, right?

that is an incomplete assessment thereby making your statements only half true. Democrats some Democrats seeking to address President Bush’s decision to get a UN resolution giving Saddam Hussein one last chance to comply Voted as all of them stated at the time to authorize the use of force “if necessary”

Do you agree that is an undeniable historical fact?

They authorized him to use force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" i

 

[surada]

Why were we even fucking even there? 27044688

what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq..

At the time he was IN FACT leaving a free and stable Iraq although stable as in ‘ relatively stable’ compared to what? Its the word “free” in that statement that you don’t comprehend or recognize its significance that makes you a liar besides the lie that us so obvious if it had teeth it would bite you.

But first why was Obama confronted with dealing with the necessity of withdrawing 160,000 ground troops from Iraq at the very same time being confronted with the worst period of global economic instability in the world since the Great Depression? What The fuck were AMERICAN TROOPS DOING IN IRAQ in the first god and Pope damned place? Can you tell me that?

Because Saddam was a threat to the region, peace and security...do you not recall he invaded his neighbhors>? Used WMDs against his own people? Geez...do you not recall the 90s at all?

Have you ever been to Iraq or the Gulf states?

Saddam wasn't a threat to his neighbors.. and as for the 1st Gulf war.. The US envoy was basically giving Saddam permission to invade Kuwait.

I haven't...

But you are incorrect, SA in fact was one of the main reasons we got in the first Gulf War, as they saw Saddam as a threat. Moreover, he literally invaded at least two of his neighbors...Iran and Kuwait.

Moreover, the entire world saw Saddam as a threat due to his WMDs, and quest for nukes

The Saudis were lied to by Dick Cheney. They had NO beef with Saddam. When did Saddam invade Iran?

 

[struth]

Why were we even fucking even there? 27044688

what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq..

At the time he was IN FACT leaving a free and stable Iraq although stable as in ‘ relatively stable’ compared to what? Its the word “free” in that statement that you don’t comprehend or recognize its significance that makes you a liar besides the lie that us so obvious if it had teeth it would bite you.

But first why was Obama confronted with dealing with the necessity of withdrawing 160,000 ground troops from Iraq at the very same time being confronted with the worst period of global economic instability in the world since the Great Depression? What The fuck were AMERICAN TROOPS DOING IN IRAQ in the first god and Pope damned place? Can you tell me that?

Because Saddam was a threat to the region, peace and security...do you not recall he invaded his neighbhors>? Used WMDs against his own people? Geez...do you not recall the 90s at all?

Have you ever been to Iraq or the Gulf states?

Saddam wasn't a threat to his neighbors.. and as for the 1st Gulf war.. The US envoy was basically giving Saddam permission to invade Kuwait.

I haven't...

But you are incorrect, SA in fact was one of the main reasons we got in the first Gulf War, as they saw Saddam as a threat. Moreover, he literally invaded at least two of his neighbors...Iran and Kuwait.

Moreover, the entire world saw Saddam as a threat due to his WMDs, and quest for nukes

The Saudis were lied to by Dick Cheney. They had NO beef with Saddam. When did Saddam invade Iran?

The Iran-Iraq war.

As highlighted, they had a major beef, and were leading reason for the first Gulf war

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SENATOR JOE BIDEN (stutters on purpose) February 5 2003 : “The hard part begins after -- after, after -- after we defeat Saddam Hussein, if that proves to be necessary, for it promises to be a lengthy and costly period of nation-building and occupation” 26951511

I was for the war. And it was done. We destroyed their military and they were no longer a threat to anyone. We should have been done at that point. What I wasn’t for is two decades of nation building.

I respect your honesty. But if you thought Bush was going to take out SADDAM HUSSEIN and walk away within years and without spending billions and billions even if it went well You were sadly and tragically mistaken.

Tell me if you were somewhat supportive of going to war over the cooked up WMD threat But you were able to absorb some understanding from Joe Biden’s warning on nation building Would you have marched against Bush before making his decision to invade prior to the fact as I did.

Biden February 5, 2003​

Now that the secretary of State has done his job, the president I think must finish his job. And that is he must engage in a personal diplomacy with -- as he already is doing, based on my breakfast with him this morning, with others -- with key members of the Security Council to pass a second resolution setting a deadline authorizing the use of force if necessary in order to disarm Saddam Hussein.​

Iraqi Weapons Violations​

While the second resolution isn't a legal requirement in my view, and while we can win the war on our own, we are much better off if we support the United Nations and we move with a broad coalition. The hard part begins after -- after, after -- after we defeat Saddam Hussein, if that proves to be necessary, for it promises to be a lengthy and costly period of nation-building and occupation -- hopefully not with merely U.S. forces. We want as many countries as possible helping us in this decade after Saddam falls. To get their help afterwards, we need to sign them up at the front end of this process, and getting them to sign up will be much easier if we have a second U.N. resolution.​

Same question for struth would you have marched against George Bush (The Decider) deciding to invade Iraq to hunt down WMD violations?

 

[struth]

SENATOR JOE BIDEN (stutters on purpose) February 5 2003 : “The hard part begins after -- after, after -- after we defeat Saddam Hussein, if that proves to be necessary, for it promises to be a lengthy and costly period of nation-building and occupation” 26951511

I was for the war. And it was done. We destroyed their military and they were no longer a threat to anyone. We should have been done at that point. What I wasn’t for is two decades of nation building.

I respect your honesty. But if you thought Bush was going to take out SADDAM HUSSEIN and walk away within years and without spending billions and billions even if it went well You were sadly and tragically mistaken.

Tell me if you were somewhat supportive of going to war over the cooked up WMD threat But you were able to absorb some understanding from Joe Biden’s warning on nation building Would you have marched against Bush before making his decision to invade prior to the fact as I did.

Biden February 5, 2003​

Now that the secretary of State has done his job, the president I think must finish his job. And that is he must engage in a personal diplomacy with -- as he already is doing, based on my breakfast with him this morning, with others -- with key members of the Security Council to pass a second resolution setting a deadline authorizing the use of force if necessary in order to disarm Saddam Hussein.​

Iraqi Weapons Violations​

While the second resolution isn't a legal requirement in my view, and while we can win the war on our own, we are much better off if we support the United Nations and we move with a broad coalition. The hard part begins after -- after, after -- after we defeat Saddam Hussein, if that proves to be necessary, for it promises to be a lengthy and costly period of nation-building and occupation -- hopefully not with merely U.S. forces. We want as many countries as possible helping us in this decade after Saddam falls. To get their help afterwards, we need to sign them up at the front end of this process, and getting them to sign up will be much easier if we have a second U.N. resolution.​

Same question for struth would you have marched against George Bush (The Decider) deciding to invade Iraq to hunt down WMD violations?

Of course nobody wanted to go, we wanted Saddam to comply....obviously.....duh

and Xiden was right, the hard part was rebuilding the nation and ensuring a democratic govt replaced Saddam. We were on track to that, a free and stable Iraq was handed to him and Obama...sadly they dropped the ball

 

[NotfooledbyW]

we ended up turning the country over to Iran, which is what everyone predicted would happen back in 2003.

Do you recall the neocons in the BUSH ADMIN saying the road to Tehran goes through BAGHDAD?

What say they now?

 

[surada]

Sddam was a secular dictator. Iran got rid of a military dictator jus

Why were we even fucking even there? 27044688

what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq..

At the time he was IN FACT leaving a free and stable Iraq although stable as in ‘ relatively stable’ compared to what? Its the word “free” in that statement that you don’t comprehend or recognize its significance that makes you a liar besides the lie that us so obvious if it had teeth it would bite you.

But first why was Obama confronted with dealing with the necessity of withdrawing 160,000 ground troops from Iraq at the very same time being confronted with the worst period of global economic instability in the world since the Great Depression? What The fuck were AMERICAN TROOPS DOING IN IRAQ in the first god and Pope damned place? Can you tell me that?

Because Saddam was a threat to the region, peace and security...do you not recall he invaded his neighbhors>? Used WMDs against his own people? Geez...do you not recall the 90s at all?

Have you ever been to Iraq or the Gulf states?

Saddam wasn't a threat to his neighbors.. and as for the 1st Gulf war.. The US envoy was basically giving Saddam permission to invade Kuwait.

I haven't...

But you are incorrect, SA in fact was one of the main reasons we got in the first Gulf War, as they saw Saddam as a threat. Moreover, he literally invaded at least two of his neighbors...Iran and Kuwait.

Moreover, the entire world saw Saddam as a threat due to his WMDs, and quest for nukes

t the year before (1979) to be replaced by a religious fundmentalist regime. Saddam feared that the same would happen to him since the shia were a majority in his country, he went to iran to overthrow that regime. Of course he was given full encouragement by US, who would not longer be getting cheap oil from Iran.

I was in touch with the Sudeiri Seven and several of the newspaper editors back them so I do know what the Saudi leadership were saying.

 

[struth]

Sddam was a secular dictator. Iran got rid of a military dictator jus

Why were we even fucking even there? 27044688

what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq..

At the time he was IN FACT leaving a free and stable Iraq although stable as in ‘ relatively stable’ compared to what? Its the word “free” in that statement that you don’t comprehend or recognize its significance that makes you a liar besides the lie that us so obvious if it had teeth it would bite you.

But first why was Obama confronted with dealing with the necessity of withdrawing 160,000 ground troops from Iraq at the very same time being confronted with the worst period of global economic instability in the world since the Great Depression? What The fuck were AMERICAN TROOPS DOING IN IRAQ in the first god and Pope damned place? Can you tell me that?

Because Saddam was a threat to the region, peace and security...do you not recall he invaded his neighbhors>? Used WMDs against his own people? Geez...do you not recall the 90s at all?

Have you ever been to Iraq or the Gulf states?

Saddam wasn't a threat to his neighbors.. and as for the 1st Gulf war.. The US envoy was basically giving Saddam permission to invade Kuwait.

I haven't...

But you are incorrect, SA in fact was one of the main reasons we got in the first Gulf War, as they saw Saddam as a threat. Moreover, he literally invaded at least two of his neighbors...Iran and Kuwait.

Moreover, the entire world saw Saddam as a threat due to his WMDs, and quest for nukes

t the year before (1979) to be replaced by a religious fundmentalist regime. Saddam feared that the same would happen to him since the shia were a majority in his country, he went to iran to overthrow that regime. Of course he was given full encouragement by US, who would not longer be getting cheap oil from Iran.

I was in touch with the Sudeiri Seven and several of the newspaper editors back them so I do know what the Saudi leadership were saying.

i agree he was, he was just a brutal dictator. Faith met very little to him, it was all about power. That doesn’t make him any better then a religious zealot dictatorship

 

[NotfooledbyW]

They authorized him to use force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"

How was it either “necessary or appropriate” after this offer was made public?

Sunday,​

FOX NEWS WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development. ​

Al-Saadi also said during a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq was prepared to answer any questions raised by the United States and Britain.​

"We are ready to deal with each of those questions if you ask us," he said.​

Knowing the above offer was available has anyone asked Dubya about intelligence gathered in March 2003 presumably checked by the CIA why Dubya did not allow the CIA agents go into Iraq to take the UN inspectors directly to the sites where the most lethal weapons ever devised wee being hidden

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”​

Why wouldn’t DUBYA exhaust every peaceful means such as sending the CIA Into Iraq to verify if the intelligence gathered was correct and not just speculation to justify preemptive war?

 

[struth]

They authorized him to use force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"

How was it either “necessary or appropriate” after this offer was made public?

Sunday,​

FOX NEWS WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development. ​

Al-Saadi also said during a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq was prepared to answer any questions raised by the United States and Britain.​

​

"We are ready to deal with each of those questions if you ask us," he said.​

Knowing the above offer was available has anyone asked Dubya about intelligence gathered in March 2003 presumably checked by the CIA why Dubya did not allow the CIA agents go into Iraq to take the UN inspectors directly to the sites where the most lethal weapons ever devised wee being hidden

​

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”​

Why wouldn’t DUBYA exhaust every peaceful means such as sending the CIA Into Iraq to verify if the intelligence gathered was correct and not just speculation to justify preemptive war?

i don’t disageee that he should have used black ops to take saddam out.

I think he and xiden were wrong to think ground troops was the only solution