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.
"The only people who would likely be harmed by these chemical materials would be the people who tried to use or move them," a military official said.
He had no wmd's whose smoking gun would be a Mushroom Cloud....that could hit us in 45 minutes....etc etc etc.It never happened.
Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.
The liberals have been insisting on it for years.
He had no wmd's whose smoking gun would be a Mushroom Cloud....that could hit us in 45 minutes....etc etc etc.It never happened.
Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.
The liberals have been insisting on it for years.
Like the last time we had to go over this. Chemical weapons have a shelf life. Saddam's chemicals have expired awhile ago..
Also your title is a lie.
You would think if we thought the weapons where dangerous we would have removed them when we were there.
But then you would need a brain to think of this logically and the op doesn't have this
Like the last time we had to go over this. Chemical weapons have a shelf life. Saddam's chemicals have expired awhile ago..
Also your title is a lie.
You would think if we thought the weapons where dangerous we would have removed them when we were there.
But then you would need a brain to think of this logically and the op doesn't have this
You are inclined to believe this regime?
IF it is true that the weapons are not dangerous then why would someone say they would be dangerous to someone who tried to use them or move them? Both statements are not true. If these weapons are now inert, they are inert. They are not dangerous to anyone. So we know they are still very dangerous. Chemical weapons of this type do not degrade until they are mixed. That's why Syria, who had Saddam Era chemical weapons was able to mix and use them.
You are inclined to believe this regime?
IF it is true that the weapons are not dangerous then why would someone say they would be dangerous to someone who tried to use them or move them? Both statements are not true.
...shut the fuck up...you have nothing....fucking trash
Chemical weapons have a shelf life.
You are inclined to believe this regime?
IF it is true that the weapons are not dangerous then why would someone say they would be dangerous to someone who tried to use them or move them? Both statements are not true.
WHen you tell as many lies as the liberals have been telling for so many years, it becomes harder and harder to keep your stories straight.
Especially as lie after lie gets exposed. That makes it really tough.
He had no wmd's whose smoking gun would be a Mushroom Cloud....that could hit us in 45 minutes....etc etc etc.It never happened.
Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.
The liberals have been insisting on it for years.
Notice how hastily the liberals "change" what they had ben screaming for years?
They weren't lying back then. Oh, no. In fact, they never said they things they said. Or they meant something else, not what they said. And on and on.....
they got dirt, the facility was trashed after everything dangerous had been trashed in 1990.. everyone knows Saddam had what Reagan gave him to fight the Russians ..
They're just phony scandals...truth stares them in the eye...You are inclined to believe this regime?
IF it is true that the weapons are not dangerous then why would someone say they would be dangerous to someone who tried to use them or move them? Both statements are not true.
WHen you tell as many lies as the liberals have been telling for so many years, it becomes harder and harder to keep your stories straight.
Especially as lie after lie gets exposed. That makes it really tough.
He had no wmd's whose smoking gun would be a Mushroom Cloud....that could hit us in 45 minutes....etc etc etc.
Notice how hastily the liberals "change" what they had ben screaming for years?
They weren't lying back then. Oh, no. In fact, they never said they things they said. Or they meant something else, not what they said. And on and on.....
they got dirt, the facility was trashed after everything dangerous had been trashed in 1990.. everyone knows Saddam had what Reagan gave him to fight the Russians ..
You are inclined to believe this regime?
IF it is true that the weapons are not dangerous then why would someone say they would be dangerous to someone who tried to use them or move them? Both statements are not true.
...shut the fuck up...you have nothing....fucking trash
What should we do...send in 10,000 troops
He had no wmd's whose smoking gun would be a Mushroom Cloud....that could hit us in 45 minutes....etc etc etc.It never happened.
Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.
The liberals have been insisting on it for years.
We knew he had chemical weapons, we supplied him with some of them, decades back, and he USED chemical weapons more than once on his own people....
but there was never a threat that he possessed nuclear wmds............ that the Smoking Gun would be us waking up to a Mushroom Cloud, as was said by the administration and its talking heads.
and on the topic...I wonder why when we were in Iraq, and before we left, we would not have destroyed any and all of the chemical weapons manufacturing facilities before we left?
He had no wmd's whose smoking gun would be a Mushroom Cloud....that could hit us in 45 minutes....etc etc etc.It never happened.
Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.
The liberals have been insisting on it for years.
We knew he had chemical weapons, we supplied him with some of them, decades back, and he USED chemical weapons more than once on his own people....
but there was never a threat that he possessed nuclear wmds............ that the Smoking Gun would be us waking up to a Mushroom Cloud, as was said by the administration and its talking heads.
and on the topic...I wonder why when we were in Iraq, and before we left, we would not have destroyed any and all of the chemical weapons manufacturing facilities before we left?
The source of the CIA's cooked intel was a guy named "curveball". He was a source that the CIA never interviewed before we went to war--while they were sending General Powell to the UN and briefing Congress; a source that other Intel agencies warned the CIA about his as to his trustworthiness; and after the CIA did finally interview him they issued a burn notice to distance themselves from this guy.
He freaking details exactly why he lied...yet the conservatives continue to believe him.
