Do you miss W like I do?

[Faun]

Bush was a disaster.

Unmitigated.

You are saying Bush should have allowed Israel to attack Iraq in an act of pre-emptive self defense?

That question is based on the false premise that Israel was going to attack Iraq preemptively.

 

[healthmyths]

I pointed out as historians will do that IN SPITE of not only 9/11 but the recession, the dot.com bust that cost $5 trillion plus 400,000 jobs and then we had the WORST hurricane SEASONS... not just one hurricane but 6 of the top ten worst hurricanes!
10 Costliest Catastrophes in the U.S. - Slide Show-Kiplinger
10. Hurricane Rita 2005
8. Hurricane Ivan 2004
7. Hurricane Charley 2004
6. Hurricane Wilma 2005
5. Hurricane Ike 2008
1. Hurricane Katrina 2005...

There were deaths, $1 trillion in losses and again NOT ONE president has ever had that happen.
Coupled with 9/11 again historians will say Bush not only helped the country SURVIVE these events but we thrived!
GWB had the Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.

So with these FACTS alone and NOT your wild exaggerated GUESSES I am 100% confident Bush will be considered a GREAT President that in spite of these 4 gigantic events occurring he kept the USA stable. Kept the economy going. Kept people working and obviously all the while NOT opening his mouth ONE time in complaining about our military killing civilians as Obama has done. Or calling police stupid. Or playing golf minutes after a beheading! These are the FACTs and you can NOT refute any of them.

The problem is a president's reign doesn't mean everything they did just stops. Just because they can't take office again. Imagine there were a 5 year term of office and not 4. Bush won in 2000 and then again in 2005. He left office in 2010. All of a sudden the statistics would have changed massively.

You can't separate the economy now with Bush's reign in office. You can have parts that are influenced by Obama, parts influenced by Bush, and also parts that are just natural and have nothing much to do with either.

The same for Bush's reign. Parts were Clinton, parts were Bush and parts just natural.

However I'd say Bush had more of an impact on the economy, and it was a negative impact mostly, than Obama has had.

But just pure "these were the stats when he took office and these are the stats when he left office" don't tell me anything much.

Well, even though your bias shined through your rationality saved this post from being just another air jerk worthy comment.

Do you have any kind of opinion that would allow for someone to reply back?

Opinions are based on facts. That's what I've presented is the realities that happened during Bush's presidency.
Do you have any facts that counter the four major events that occurred that have never occurred in any other presidency?
Again.. unless your opinion is formed with those facts as background of course.
But most people have no idea the immense economic, lives losts, businesses lost due to those 4 events.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I pointed out as historians will do that IN SPITE of not only 9/11 but the recession, the dot.com bust that cost $5 trillion plus 400,000 jobs and then we had the WORST hurricane SEASONS... not just one hurricane but 6 of the top ten worst hurricanes!
10 Costliest Catastrophes in the U.S. - Slide Show-Kiplinger
10. Hurricane Rita 2005
8. Hurricane Ivan 2004
7. Hurricane Charley 2004
6. Hurricane Wilma 2005
5. Hurricane Ike 2008
1. Hurricane Katrina 2005...

There were deaths, $1 trillion in losses and again NOT ONE president has ever had that happen.
Coupled with 9/11 again historians will say Bush not only helped the country SURVIVE these events but we thrived!
GWB had the Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.

So with these FACTS alone and NOT your wild exaggerated GUESSES I am 100% confident Bush will be considered a GREAT President that in spite of these 4 gigantic events occurring he kept the USA stable. Kept the economy going. Kept people working and obviously all the while NOT opening his mouth ONE time in complaining about our military killing civilians as Obama has done. Or calling police stupid. Or playing golf minutes after a beheading! These are the FACTs and you can NOT refute any of them.

The problem is a president's reign doesn't mean everything they did just stops. Just because they can't take office again. Imagine there were a 5 year term of office and not 4. Bush won in 2000 and then again in 2005. He left office in 2010. All of a sudden the statistics would have changed massively.

You can't separate the economy now with Bush's reign in office. You can have parts that are influenced by Obama, parts influenced by Bush, and also parts that are just natural and have nothing much to do with either.

The same for Bush's reign. Parts were Clinton, parts were Bush and parts just natural.

However I'd say Bush had more of an impact on the economy, and it was a negative impact mostly, than Obama has had.

But just pure "these were the stats when he took office and these are the stats when he left office" don't tell me anything much.

Well, even though your bias shined through your rationality saved this post from being just another air jerk worthy comment.

Do you have any kind of opinion that would allow for someone to reply back?

Opinions are based on facts. That's what I've presented is the realities that happened during Bush's presidency.
Do you have any facts that counter the four major events that occurred that have never occurred in any other presidency?
Again.. unless your opinion is formed with those facts as background of course.
But most people have no idea the immense economic, lives losts, businesses lost due to those 4 events.

That wasn't what I was posting in response to, I was posting in response to "Well, even though your bias shined through your rationality saved this post from being just another air jerk worthy comment."

 

[healthmyths]

I pointed out as historians will do that IN SPITE of not only 9/11 but the recession, the dot.com bust that cost $5 trillion plus 400,000 jobs and then we had the WORST hurricane SEASONS... not just one hurricane but 6 of the top ten worst hurricanes!
10 Costliest Catastrophes in the U.S. - Slide Show-Kiplinger
10. Hurricane Rita 2005
8. Hurricane Ivan 2004
7. Hurricane Charley 2004
6. Hurricane Wilma 2005
5. Hurricane Ike 2008
1. Hurricane Katrina 2005...

There were deaths, $1 trillion in losses and again NOT ONE president has ever had that happen.
Coupled with 9/11 again historians will say Bush not only helped the country SURVIVE these events but we thrived!
GWB had the Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.

So with these FACTS alone and NOT your wild exaggerated GUESSES I am 100% confident Bush will be considered a GREAT President that in spite of these 4 gigantic events occurring he kept the USA stable. Kept the economy going. Kept people working and obviously all the while NOT opening his mouth ONE time in complaining about our military killing civilians as Obama has done. Or calling police stupid. Or playing golf minutes after a beheading! These are the FACTs and you can NOT refute any of them.

The problem is a president's reign doesn't mean everything they did just stops. Just because they can't take office again. Imagine there were a 5 year term of office and not 4. Bush won in 2000 and then again in 2005. He left office in 2010. All of a sudden the statistics would have changed massively.

You can't separate the economy now with Bush's reign in office. You can have parts that are influenced by Obama, parts influenced by Bush, and also parts that are just natural and have nothing much to do with either.

The same for Bush's reign. Parts were Clinton, parts were Bush and parts just natural.

However I'd say Bush had more of an impact on the economy, and it was a negative impact mostly, than Obama has had.

But just pure "these were the stats when he took office and these are the stats when he left office" don't tell me anything much.

Well, even though your bias shined through your rationality saved this post from being just another air jerk worthy comment.

Do you have any kind of opinion that would allow for someone to reply back?

Opinions are based on facts. That's what I've presented is the realities that happened during Bush's presidency.
Do you have any facts that counter the four major events that occurred that have never occurred in any other presidency?
Again.. unless your opinion is formed with those facts as background of course.
But most people have no idea the immense economic, lives losts, businesses lost due to those 4 events.

That wasn't what I was posting in response to, I was posting in response to "Well, even though your bias shined through your rationality saved this post from being just another air jerk worthy comment."

I apologize if I offended you. I thought you were commenting on my post where I laid out specific events that Bush experienced that no other presidency have had to deal with and as a result Bush after historians perspective of time will realize that given these events AND
given the animosity Bush had to deal with from the MSM and Bush haters, Bush will be categorized as a "Great" President.
Again... most uninformed people don't seem to remember all the above events PLUS I never mentioned the Anthrax attacks that millions of Americans right after 9/11 had NO idea where they were coming from. Since Saddam had anthrax labs suppositions were after 9/11 Saddam was behind them.
My point is that unless you form opinions BASED on facts, much of the Bush bashers being limited in their attention span only can
think in 30 second sound bites... hence they don't have much info to base their BIASED opinions.

 

[Mojo2]

Bush was a disaster.

Unmitigated.

You are saying Bush should have allowed Israel to attack Iraq in an act of pre-emptive self defense?

That question is based on the false premise that Israel was going to attack Iraq preemptively.

It hasn't been proven or verified officially, no.

However, it's a scenario which can't be discounted because it is very likely that is EXACTLY what transpired.

You tried to figure out how to fend off or dismiss this likely scenario in my post and you can't.

That's why you are here whining about it.

The Associated Press reports, “The documents also confirm previous reports that Saddam falsely allowed the world to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — the main U.S. rationale behind the war — because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, the hostile neighbor he considered a bigger threat than the U.S.”

The USA Today blog “On Deadline” similarly reports, “Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, in 20 formal interviews and at least five casual conversations with the FBI, said he was bluffing publicly about having weapons of mass destruction because he feared showing weakness to Iran, according to newly released FBI summaries.”

The Christian Science Monitor’s “global news blog” , under a headline reading “Why Saddam Hussein lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction“, states that “Saddam Hussein encouraged the perception that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) because he was afraid of appearing weak in Iran’s eyes, according to nearly two dozen declassified transcripts of an FBI agent’s conversations with the former Iraqi dictator released Wednesday.”

A London Telegraph headline reads “Saddam Hussein ‘lied about WMDs to protect Iraq from Iran‘”. The article states, “Saddam Hussein told the FBI that he misled the world into believing Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, according to declassified interview transcripts.”

The Israeli daily Haaretz carries a Reutersreport headlined “FBI: Saddam told us he lied about having nukes to deter Iran“, which states that “Saddam Hussein believed Iran was a significant threat to Iraq and left open the possibility that he had weapons of mass destruction rather than appear vulnerable, according to declassified FBI documents on interrogations of the former Iraqi leader.”

The entire relevant section from the released summary of a June 11, 2004 interrogation reads: “SSA Piro then asked Hussein if he wrote his own speeches and they come from the heart, then what was the meaning of his June 2000 speech (Ed: Saddam set the terms of their stalemate and announced it to the world in that 2000 speech directed at Iraq's hostile neighbors, with these words: "A rifle for a rifle, a stick for a stick, a stone for a stone”. )

Hussein replied this speech was meant to serve a regional and operational purpose.

Regionally, the speech was meant to respond to Iraq’s regional threat. Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to its enemies, especially Iran. Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must appear able to defend itself.”​

Western Media Persists in Propaganda About Iraq s Purported WMD - Foreign Policy Journal

 

[Faun]

Bush was a disaster.

Unmitigated.

You are saying Bush should have allowed Israel to attack Iraq in an act of pre-emptive self defense?

That question is based on the false premise that Israel was going to attack Iraq preemptively.

It hasn't been proven or verified officially, no.

However, it's a scenario which can't be discounted because it is very likely that is EXACTLY what transpired.

You tried to figure out how to fend off or dismiss this likely scenario in my post and you can't.

That's why you are here whining about it.

The Associated Press reports, “The documents also confirm previous reports that Saddam falsely allowed the world to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — the main U.S. rationale behind the war — because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, the hostile neighbor he considered a bigger threat than the U.S.”

The USA Today blog “On Deadline” similarly reports, “Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, in 20 formal interviews and at least five casual conversations with the FBI, said he was bluffing publicly about having weapons of mass destruction because he feared showing weakness to Iran, according to newly released FBI summaries.”

The Christian Science Monitor’s “global news blog” , under a headline reading “Why Saddam Hussein lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction“, states that “Saddam Hussein encouraged the perception that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) because he was afraid of appearing weak in Iran’s eyes, according to nearly two dozen declassified transcripts of an FBI agent’s conversations with the former Iraqi dictator released Wednesday.”

A London Telegraph headline reads “Saddam Hussein ‘lied about WMDs to protect Iraq from Iran‘”. The article states, “Saddam Hussein told the FBI that he misled the world into believing Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, according to declassified interview transcripts.”

The Israeli daily Haaretz carries a Reutersreport headlined “FBI: Saddam told us he lied about having nukes to deter Iran“, which states that “Saddam Hussein believed Iran was a significant threat to Iraq and left open the possibility that he had weapons of mass destruction rather than appear vulnerable, according to declassified FBI documents on interrogations of the former Iraqi leader.”

The entire relevant section from the released summary of a June 11, 2004 interrogation reads: “SSA Piro then asked Hussein if he wrote his own speeches and they come from the heart, then what was the meaning of his June 2000 speech (Ed: Saddam set the terms of their stalemate and announced it to the world in that 2000 speech directed at Iraq's hostile neighbors, with these words: "A rifle for a rifle, a stick for a stick, a stone for a stone”. )

Hussein replied this speech was meant to serve a regional and operational purpose.

Regionally, the speech was meant to respond to Iraq’s regional threat. Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to its enemies, especially Iran. Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must appear able to defend itself.”​

Western Media Persists in Propaganda About Iraq s Purported WMD - Foreign Policy Journal

You're playing with your imagination. That is not a scenario which would have "likely transpired." There was no indication Israel was going to strike Iraq unless Iraq attacked them first. And like many countries, Israeli intelligence had no evidence that Hussein was in possession of WMDs. Your question remains baseless as it's built upon the fragile foundation of a false premise.

 

[Mojo2]

Bush was a disaster.

Unmitigated.

You are saying Bush should have allowed Israel to attack Iraq in an act of pre-emptive self defense?

That question is based on the false premise that Israel was going to attack Iraq preemptively.

It hasn't been proven or verified officially, no.

However, it's a scenario which can't be discounted because it is very likely that is EXACTLY what transpired.

You tried to figure out how to fend off or dismiss this likely scenario in my post and you can't.

That's why you are here whining about it.

The Associated Press reports, “The documents also confirm previous reports that Saddam falsely allowed the world to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — the main U.S. rationale behind the war — because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, the hostile neighbor he considered a bigger threat than the U.S.”

The USA Today blog “On Deadline” similarly reports, “Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, in 20 formal interviews and at least five casual conversations with the FBI, said he was bluffing publicly about having weapons of mass destruction because he feared showing weakness to Iran, according to newly released FBI summaries.”

The Christian Science Monitor’s “global news blog” , under a headline reading “Why Saddam Hussein lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction“, states that “Saddam Hussein encouraged the perception that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) because he was afraid of appearing weak in Iran’s eyes, according to nearly two dozen declassified transcripts of an FBI agent’s conversations with the former Iraqi dictator released Wednesday.”

A London Telegraph headline reads “Saddam Hussein ‘lied about WMDs to protect Iraq from Iran‘”. The article states, “Saddam Hussein told the FBI that he misled the world into believing Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, according to declassified interview transcripts.”

The Israeli daily Haaretz carries a Reutersreport headlined “FBI: Saddam told us he lied about having nukes to deter Iran“, which states that “Saddam Hussein believed Iran was a significant threat to Iraq and left open the possibility that he had weapons of mass destruction rather than appear vulnerable, according to declassified FBI documents on interrogations of the former Iraqi leader.”

The entire relevant section from the released summary of a June 11, 2004 interrogation reads: “SSA Piro then asked Hussein if he wrote his own speeches and they come from the heart, then what was the meaning of his June 2000 speech (Ed: Saddam set the terms of their stalemate and announced it to the world in that 2000 speech directed at Iraq's hostile neighbors, with these words: "A rifle for a rifle, a stick for a stick, a stone for a stone”. )

Hussein replied this speech was meant to serve a regional and operational purpose.

Regionally, the speech was meant to respond to Iraq’s regional threat. Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to its enemies, especially Iran. Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must appear able to defend itself.”​

Western Media Persists in Propaganda About Iraq s Purported WMD - Foreign Policy Journal

You're playing with your imagination. That is not a scenario which would have "likely transpired." There was no indication Israel was going to strike Iraq unless Iraq attacked them first. And like many countries, Israeli intelligence had no evidence that Hussein was in possession of WMDs. Your question remains baseless as it's built upon the fragile foundation of a false premise.

You are in massive denial.

The scenario makes more sense than anything you have posted and you can't discount it.

You can't even explain why Iran actually DID NOT REINVADE Iraq!

If so, now's your chance.

We're waiting.

 

[Faun]

Unmitigated.

You are saying Bush should have allowed Israel to attack Iraq in an act of pre-emptive self defense?

That question is based on the false premise that Israel was going to attack Iraq preemptively.

It hasn't been proven or verified officially, no.

However, it's a scenario which can't be discounted because it is very likely that is EXACTLY what transpired.

You tried to figure out how to fend off or dismiss this likely scenario in my post and you can't.

That's why you are here whining about it.

The Associated Press reports, “The documents also confirm previous reports that Saddam falsely allowed the world to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — the main U.S. rationale behind the war — because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, the hostile neighbor he considered a bigger threat than the U.S.”

The USA Today blog “On Deadline” similarly reports, “Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, in 20 formal interviews and at least five casual conversations with the FBI, said he was bluffing publicly about having weapons of mass destruction because he feared showing weakness to Iran, according to newly released FBI summaries.”

The Christian Science Monitor’s “global news blog” , under a headline reading “Why Saddam Hussein lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction“, states that “Saddam Hussein encouraged the perception that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) because he was afraid of appearing weak in Iran’s eyes, according to nearly two dozen declassified transcripts of an FBI agent’s conversations with the former Iraqi dictator released Wednesday.”

A London Telegraph headline reads “Saddam Hussein ‘lied about WMDs to protect Iraq from Iran‘”. The article states, “Saddam Hussein told the FBI that he misled the world into believing Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, according to declassified interview transcripts.”

The Israeli daily Haaretz carries a Reutersreport headlined “FBI: Saddam told us he lied about having nukes to deter Iran“, which states that “Saddam Hussein believed Iran was a significant threat to Iraq and left open the possibility that he had weapons of mass destruction rather than appear vulnerable, according to declassified FBI documents on interrogations of the former Iraqi leader.”

The entire relevant section from the released summary of a June 11, 2004 interrogation reads: “SSA Piro then asked Hussein if he wrote his own speeches and they come from the heart, then what was the meaning of his June 2000 speech (Ed: Saddam set the terms of their stalemate and announced it to the world in that 2000 speech directed at Iraq's hostile neighbors, with these words: "A rifle for a rifle, a stick for a stick, a stone for a stone”. )

Hussein replied this speech was meant to serve a regional and operational purpose.

Regionally, the speech was meant to respond to Iraq’s regional threat. Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to its enemies, especially Iran. Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must appear able to defend itself.”​

Western Media Persists in Propaganda About Iraq s Purported WMD - Foreign Policy Journal

You're playing with your imagination. That is not a scenario which would have "likely transpired." There was no indication Israel was going to strike Iraq unless Iraq attacked them first. And like many countries, Israeli intelligence had no evidence that Hussein was in possession of WMDs. Your question remains baseless as it's built upon the fragile foundation of a false premise.

You are in massive denial.

The scenario makes more sense than anything you have posted and you can't discount it.

You can't even explain why Iran actually DID NOT REINVADE Iraq!

If so, now's your chance.

We're waiting.

Denial of what, your imagination? It did not make sense for Israel to invade Iraq because Iraq was not a threat to Israel.

And what exactly do you think Israel stood to gain by invading Iraq?? It makes no sense at all.

 

[g5000]

I miss W like I miss Ebola.

I will miss Obama the same.

 

[Mojo2]

You are saying Bush should have allowed Israel to attack Iraq in an act of pre-emptive self defense?

That question is based on the false premise that Israel was going to attack Iraq preemptively.

It hasn't been proven or verified officially, no.

However, it's a scenario which can't be discounted because it is very likely that is EXACTLY what transpired.

You tried to figure out how to fend off or dismiss this likely scenario in my post and you can't.

That's why you are here whining about it.

The Associated Press reports, “The documents also confirm previous reports that Saddam falsely allowed the world to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — the main U.S. rationale behind the war — because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, the hostile neighbor he considered a bigger threat than the U.S.”

The USA Today blog “On Deadline” similarly reports, “Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, in 20 formal interviews and at least five casual conversations with the FBI, said he was bluffing publicly about having weapons of mass destruction because he feared showing weakness to Iran, according to newly released FBI summaries.”

The Christian Science Monitor’s “global news blog” , under a headline reading “Why Saddam Hussein lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction“, states that “Saddam Hussein encouraged the perception that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) because he was afraid of appearing weak in Iran’s eyes, according to nearly two dozen declassified transcripts of an FBI agent’s conversations with the former Iraqi dictator released Wednesday.”

A London Telegraph headline reads “Saddam Hussein ‘lied about WMDs to protect Iraq from Iran‘”. The article states, “Saddam Hussein told the FBI that he misled the world into believing Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, according to declassified interview transcripts.”

The Israeli daily Haaretz carries a Reutersreport headlined “FBI: Saddam told us he lied about having nukes to deter Iran“, which states that “Saddam Hussein believed Iran was a significant threat to Iraq and left open the possibility that he had weapons of mass destruction rather than appear vulnerable, according to declassified FBI documents on interrogations of the former Iraqi leader.”

The entire relevant section from the released summary of a June 11, 2004 interrogation reads: “SSA Piro then asked Hussein if he wrote his own speeches and they come from the heart, then what was the meaning of his June 2000 speech (Ed: Saddam set the terms of their stalemate and announced it to the world in that 2000 speech directed at Iraq's hostile neighbors, with these words: "A rifle for a rifle, a stick for a stick, a stone for a stone”. )

Hussein replied this speech was meant to serve a regional and operational purpose.

Regionally, the speech was meant to respond to Iraq’s regional threat. Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to its enemies, especially Iran. Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must appear able to defend itself.”​

Western Media Persists in Propaganda About Iraq s Purported WMD - Foreign Policy Journal

You're playing with your imagination. That is not a scenario which would have "likely transpired." There was no indication Israel was going to strike Iraq unless Iraq attacked them first. And like many countries, Israeli intelligence had no evidence that Hussein was in possession of WMDs. Your question remains baseless as it's built upon the fragile foundation of a false premise.

You are in massive denial.

The scenario makes more sense than anything you have posted and you can't discount it.

You can't even explain why Iran actually DID NOT REINVADE Iraq!

If so, now's your chance.

We're waiting.

Denial of what, your imagination? It did not make sense for Israel to invade Iraq because Iraq was not a threat to Israel.

And what exactly do you think Israel stood to gain by invading Iraq?? It makes no sense at all.

You are saying Bush should have allowed Israel to attack Iraq in an act of pre-emptive self defense?

That question is based on the false premise that Israel was going to attack Iraq preemptively.

It hasn't been proven or verified officially, no.

However, it's a scenario which can't be discounted because it is very likely that is EXACTLY what transpired.

You tried to figure out how to fend off or dismiss this likely scenario in my post and you can't.

That's why you are here whining about it.

The Associated Press reports, “The documents also confirm previous reports that Saddam falsely allowed the world to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — the main U.S. rationale behind the war — because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, the hostile neighbor he considered a bigger threat than the U.S.”

The USA Today blog “On Deadline” similarly reports, “Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, in 20 formal interviews and at least five casual conversations with the FBI, said he was bluffing publicly about having weapons of mass destruction because he feared showing weakness to Iran, according to newly released FBI summaries.”

The Christian Science Monitor’s “global news blog” , under a headline reading “Why Saddam Hussein lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction“, states that “Saddam Hussein encouraged the perception that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) because he was afraid of appearing weak in Iran’s eyes, according to nearly two dozen declassified transcripts of an FBI agent’s conversations with the former Iraqi dictator released Wednesday.”

A London Telegraph headline reads “Saddam Hussein ‘lied about WMDs to protect Iraq from Iran‘”. The article states, “Saddam Hussein told the FBI that he misled the world into believing Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, according to declassified interview transcripts.”

The Israeli daily Haaretz carries a Reutersreport headlined “FBI: Saddam told us he lied about having nukes to deter Iran“, which states that “Saddam Hussein believed Iran was a significant threat to Iraq and left open the possibility that he had weapons of mass destruction rather than appear vulnerable, according to declassified FBI documents on interrogations of the former Iraqi leader.”

The entire relevant section from the released summary of a June 11, 2004 interrogation reads: “SSA Piro then asked Hussein if he wrote his own speeches and they come from the heart, then what was the meaning of his June 2000 speech (Ed: Saddam set the terms of their stalemate and announced it to the world in that 2000 speech directed at Iraq's hostile neighbors, with these words: "A rifle for a rifle, a stick for a stick, a stone for a stone”. )

Hussein replied this speech was meant to serve a regional and operational purpose.

Regionally, the speech was meant to respond to Iraq’s regional threat. Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to its enemies, especially Iran. Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must appear able to defend itself.”​

Western Media Persists in Propaganda About Iraq s Purported WMD - Foreign Policy Journal

You're playing with your imagination. That is not a scenario which would have "likely transpired." There was no indication Israel was going to strike Iraq unless Iraq attacked them first. And like many countries, Israeli intelligence had no evidence that Hussein was in possession of WMDs. Your question remains baseless as it's built upon the fragile foundation of a false premise.

You are in massive denial.

The scenario makes more sense than anything you have posted and you can't discount it.

You can't even explain why Iran actually DID NOT REINVADE Iraq!

If so, now's your chance.

We're waiting.

Denial of what, your imagination? It did not make sense for Israel to invade Iraq because Iraq was not a threat to Israel.

And what exactly do you think Israel stood to gain by invading Iraq?? It makes no sense at all.

Well, I guess not!

You must be one of those brainiac Egyptians who thought the Israelis wouldn't see their troops massed along the border as a sure sign of an impending invasion.

Sound of IDF attack planes .

Mustafa, how did they know?

Boom.

 

[Mojo2]

I miss W like I miss Ebola.

I will miss Obama the same.

It is a lucky man who can clearly see his world in real time.

 

[Faun]

That question is based on the false premise that Israel was going to attack Iraq preemptively.

It hasn't been proven or verified officially, no.

However, it's a scenario which can't be discounted because it is very likely that is EXACTLY what transpired.

You tried to figure out how to fend off or dismiss this likely scenario in my post and you can't.

That's why you are here whining about it.

The Associated Press reports, “The documents also confirm previous reports that Saddam falsely allowed the world to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — the main U.S. rationale behind the war — because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, the hostile neighbor he considered a bigger threat than the U.S.”

The USA Today blog “On Deadline” similarly reports, “Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, in 20 formal interviews and at least five casual conversations with the FBI, said he was bluffing publicly about having weapons of mass destruction because he feared showing weakness to Iran, according to newly released FBI summaries.”

The Christian Science Monitor’s “global news blog” , under a headline reading “Why Saddam Hussein lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction“, states that “Saddam Hussein encouraged the perception that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) because he was afraid of appearing weak in Iran’s eyes, according to nearly two dozen declassified transcripts of an FBI agent’s conversations with the former Iraqi dictator released Wednesday.”

A London Telegraph headline reads “Saddam Hussein ‘lied about WMDs to protect Iraq from Iran‘”. The article states, “Saddam Hussein told the FBI that he misled the world into believing Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, according to declassified interview transcripts.”

The Israeli daily Haaretz carries a Reutersreport headlined “FBI: Saddam told us he lied about having nukes to deter Iran“, which states that “Saddam Hussein believed Iran was a significant threat to Iraq and left open the possibility that he had weapons of mass destruction rather than appear vulnerable, according to declassified FBI documents on interrogations of the former Iraqi leader.”

The entire relevant section from the released summary of a June 11, 2004 interrogation reads: “SSA Piro then asked Hussein if he wrote his own speeches and they come from the heart, then what was the meaning of his June 2000 speech (Ed: Saddam set the terms of their stalemate and announced it to the world in that 2000 speech directed at Iraq's hostile neighbors, with these words: "A rifle for a rifle, a stick for a stick, a stone for a stone”. )

Hussein replied this speech was meant to serve a regional and operational purpose.

Regionally, the speech was meant to respond to Iraq’s regional threat. Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to its enemies, especially Iran. Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must appear able to defend itself.”​

Western Media Persists in Propaganda About Iraq s Purported WMD - Foreign Policy Journal

You're playing with your imagination. That is not a scenario which would have "likely transpired." There was no indication Israel was going to strike Iraq unless Iraq attacked them first. And like many countries, Israeli intelligence had no evidence that Hussein was in possession of WMDs. Your question remains baseless as it's built upon the fragile foundation of a false premise.

You are in massive denial.

The scenario makes more sense than anything you have posted and you can't discount it.

You can't even explain why Iran actually DID NOT REINVADE Iraq!

If so, now's your chance.

We're waiting.

Denial of what, your imagination? It did not make sense for Israel to invade Iraq because Iraq was not a threat to Israel.

And what exactly do you think Israel stood to gain by invading Iraq?? It makes no sense at all.

That question is based on the false premise that Israel was going to attack Iraq preemptively.

It hasn't been proven or verified officially, no.

However, it's a scenario which can't be discounted because it is very likely that is EXACTLY what transpired.

You tried to figure out how to fend off or dismiss this likely scenario in my post and you can't.

That's why you are here whining about it.

The Associated Press reports, “The documents also confirm previous reports that Saddam falsely allowed the world to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — the main U.S. rationale behind the war — because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, the hostile neighbor he considered a bigger threat than the U.S.”

The USA Today blog “On Deadline” similarly reports, “Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, in 20 formal interviews and at least five casual conversations with the FBI, said he was bluffing publicly about having weapons of mass destruction because he feared showing weakness to Iran, according to newly released FBI summaries.”

The Christian Science Monitor’s “global news blog” , under a headline reading “Why Saddam Hussein lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction“, states that “Saddam Hussein encouraged the perception that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) because he was afraid of appearing weak in Iran’s eyes, according to nearly two dozen declassified transcripts of an FBI agent’s conversations with the former Iraqi dictator released Wednesday.”

A London Telegraph headline reads “Saddam Hussein ‘lied about WMDs to protect Iraq from Iran‘”. The article states, “Saddam Hussein told the FBI that he misled the world into believing Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, according to declassified interview transcripts.”

The Israeli daily Haaretz carries a Reutersreport headlined “FBI: Saddam told us he lied about having nukes to deter Iran“, which states that “Saddam Hussein believed Iran was a significant threat to Iraq and left open the possibility that he had weapons of mass destruction rather than appear vulnerable, according to declassified FBI documents on interrogations of the former Iraqi leader.”

The entire relevant section from the released summary of a June 11, 2004 interrogation reads: “SSA Piro then asked Hussein if he wrote his own speeches and they come from the heart, then what was the meaning of his June 2000 speech (Ed: Saddam set the terms of their stalemate and announced it to the world in that 2000 speech directed at Iraq's hostile neighbors, with these words: "A rifle for a rifle, a stick for a stick, a stone for a stone”. )

Hussein replied this speech was meant to serve a regional and operational purpose.

Regionally, the speech was meant to respond to Iraq’s regional threat. Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to its enemies, especially Iran. Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must appear able to defend itself.”​

Western Media Persists in Propaganda About Iraq s Purported WMD - Foreign Policy Journal

You're playing with your imagination. That is not a scenario which would have "likely transpired." There was no indication Israel was going to strike Iraq unless Iraq attacked them first. And like many countries, Israeli intelligence had no evidence that Hussein was in possession of WMDs. Your question remains baseless as it's built upon the fragile foundation of a false premise.

You are in massive denial.

The scenario makes more sense than anything you have posted and you can't discount it.

You can't even explain why Iran actually DID NOT REINVADE Iraq!

If so, now's your chance.

We're waiting.

Denial of what, your imagination? It did not make sense for Israel to invade Iraq because Iraq was not a threat to Israel.

And what exactly do you think Israel stood to gain by invading Iraq?? It makes no sense at all.

Well, I guess not!

You must be one of those brainiac Egyptians who thought the Israelis wouldn't see their troops massed along the border as a sure sign of an impending invasion.

Sound of IDF attack planes .

Mustafa, how did they know?

Boom.

Wow. You are so thoroughly defeated in this argument that you're reduced to conflating an actual threat in which Israel was justified to strike preemptively with your imaginary threat where there is neither evidence of a threat nor evidence Israel perceived one.

 

[Mojo2]

It hasn't been proven or verified officially, no.

However, it's a scenario which can't be discounted because it is very likely that is EXACTLY what transpired.

You tried to figure out how to fend off or dismiss this likely scenario in my post and you can't.

That's why you are here whining about it.

The Associated Press reports, “The documents also confirm previous reports that Saddam falsely allowed the world to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — the main U.S. rationale behind the war — because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, the hostile neighbor he considered a bigger threat than the U.S.”

The USA Today blog “On Deadline” similarly reports, “Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, in 20 formal interviews and at least five casual conversations with the FBI, said he was bluffing publicly about having weapons of mass destruction because he feared showing weakness to Iran, according to newly released FBI summaries.”

The Christian Science Monitor’s “global news blog” , under a headline reading “Why Saddam Hussein lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction“, states that “Saddam Hussein encouraged the perception that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) because he was afraid of appearing weak in Iran’s eyes, according to nearly two dozen declassified transcripts of an FBI agent’s conversations with the former Iraqi dictator released Wednesday.”

A London Telegraph headline reads “Saddam Hussein ‘lied about WMDs to protect Iraq from Iran‘”. The article states, “Saddam Hussein told the FBI that he misled the world into believing Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, according to declassified interview transcripts.”

The Israeli daily Haaretz carries a Reutersreport headlined “FBI: Saddam told us he lied about having nukes to deter Iran“, which states that “Saddam Hussein believed Iran was a significant threat to Iraq and left open the possibility that he had weapons of mass destruction rather than appear vulnerable, according to declassified FBI documents on interrogations of the former Iraqi leader.”

The entire relevant section from the released summary of a June 11, 2004 interrogation reads: “SSA Piro then asked Hussein if he wrote his own speeches and they come from the heart, then what was the meaning of his June 2000 speech (Ed: Saddam set the terms of their stalemate and announced it to the world in that 2000 speech directed at Iraq's hostile neighbors, with these words: "A rifle for a rifle, a stick for a stick, a stone for a stone”. )

Hussein replied this speech was meant to serve a regional and operational purpose.

Regionally, the speech was meant to respond to Iraq’s regional threat. Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to its enemies, especially Iran. Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must appear able to defend itself.”​

Western Media Persists in Propaganda About Iraq s Purported WMD - Foreign Policy Journal

You're playing with your imagination. That is not a scenario which would have "likely transpired." There was no indication Israel was going to strike Iraq unless Iraq attacked them first. And like many countries, Israeli intelligence had no evidence that Hussein was in possession of WMDs. Your question remains baseless as it's built upon the fragile foundation of a false premise.

You are in massive denial.

The scenario makes more sense than anything you have posted and you can't discount it.

You can't even explain why Iran actually DID NOT REINVADE Iraq!

If so, now's your chance.

We're waiting.

Denial of what, your imagination? It did not make sense for Israel to invade Iraq because Iraq was not a threat to Israel.

And what exactly do you think Israel stood to gain by invading Iraq?? It makes no sense at all.

It hasn't been proven or verified officially, no.

However, it's a scenario which can't be discounted because it is very likely that is EXACTLY what transpired.

You tried to figure out how to fend off or dismiss this likely scenario in my post and you can't.

That's why you are here whining about it.

The Associated Press reports, “The documents also confirm previous reports that Saddam falsely allowed the world to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — the main U.S. rationale behind the war — because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, the hostile neighbor he considered a bigger threat than the U.S.”

The USA Today blog “On Deadline” similarly reports, “Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, in 20 formal interviews and at least five casual conversations with the FBI, said he was bluffing publicly about having weapons of mass destruction because he feared showing weakness to Iran, according to newly released FBI summaries.”

The Christian Science Monitor’s “global news blog” , under a headline reading “Why Saddam Hussein lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction“, states that “Saddam Hussein encouraged the perception that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) because he was afraid of appearing weak in Iran’s eyes, according to nearly two dozen declassified transcripts of an FBI agent’s conversations with the former Iraqi dictator released Wednesday.”

A London Telegraph headline reads “Saddam Hussein ‘lied about WMDs to protect Iraq from Iran‘”. The article states, “Saddam Hussein told the FBI that he misled the world into believing Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, according to declassified interview transcripts.”

The Israeli daily Haaretz carries a Reutersreport headlined “FBI: Saddam told us he lied about having nukes to deter Iran“, which states that “Saddam Hussein believed Iran was a significant threat to Iraq and left open the possibility that he had weapons of mass destruction rather than appear vulnerable, according to declassified FBI documents on interrogations of the former Iraqi leader.”

The entire relevant section from the released summary of a June 11, 2004 interrogation reads: “SSA Piro then asked Hussein if he wrote his own speeches and they come from the heart, then what was the meaning of his June 2000 speech (Ed: Saddam set the terms of their stalemate and announced it to the world in that 2000 speech directed at Iraq's hostile neighbors, with these words: "A rifle for a rifle, a stick for a stick, a stone for a stone”. )

Hussein replied this speech was meant to serve a regional and operational purpose.

Regionally, the speech was meant to respond to Iraq’s regional threat. Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to its enemies, especially Iran. Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must appear able to defend itself.”​

Western Media Persists in Propaganda About Iraq s Purported WMD - Foreign Policy Journal

You're playing with your imagination. That is not a scenario which would have "likely transpired." There was no indication Israel was going to strike Iraq unless Iraq attacked them first. And like many countries, Israeli intelligence had no evidence that Hussein was in possession of WMDs. Your question remains baseless as it's built upon the fragile foundation of a false premise.

You are in massive denial.

The scenario makes more sense than anything you have posted and you can't discount it.

You can't even explain why Iran actually DID NOT REINVADE Iraq!

If so, now's your chance.

We're waiting.

Denial of what, your imagination? It did not make sense for Israel to invade Iraq because Iraq was not a threat to Israel.

And what exactly do you think Israel stood to gain by invading Iraq?? It makes no sense at all.

Well, I guess not!

You must be one of those brainiac Egyptians who thought the Israelis wouldn't see their troops massed along the border as a sure sign of an impending invasion.

Sound of IDF attack planes .

Mustafa, how did they know?

Boom.

Wow. You are so thoroughly defeated in this argument that you're reduced to conflating an actual threat in which Israel was justified to strike preemptively with your imaginary threat where there is neither evidence of a threat nor evidence Israel perceived one.

Air jerk.