Remember folks when you read this ...THERE WERE NEVER NEVER any WMDs!!!

[Mac1958]

 

[whutTHEYsay]

OW 9975310 regarding OC 9975298.

It was not an invasion it was a liberation.

Actually it was regime change and we violently flipped the ruling sectarian divide in Iraq's society from Sunni authoritarian control to Shiite authoritarian control. The notion that we liberated Sunnis while at the same time liberating Shiites is a farce. And what is most farcical is the notion that American (mostly non-Islamic) US troops engaged in combat and sustained bombing of Iraq's teeming millions of impoverished Shiites in Sadr City to liberate them is equally absurd.

We unleashed Shiite on Sunni genocide as Sunni families and business owners were driven from Sunni dominated areas of Baghdad. Many of those surviving Sunnis were radicalized by that Shia on Sinni violence and are leaders and IS terrorist fighters today. They want theirproperty and status back.

But your simple-minded notion about the "liberation of Iraq" is so foolish because you are perhaps in agreement with EconChick's presentation that up to 50,000 US troops were needed in 2012 and well into the future in order to preserve the "liberation" gains that were achieved by 2008. That would have created if enacted a scenario where US troops were continuously fighting FOR Shiite males who would not fight to defend their US and UK liberation as long as Americans were willingly sacrificed and American tax-payer financed over several decades of war and involved in Iraq's and the region's centuries long sectarian conflicts.

Your contention is so ignorant of Iraq and the region's violent Sunni/Shia reality the resident utmost expert on Iraq will attempt to defend your assertion that there was no US invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

 

[Theowl32]

Good to know they died for a noble cause.

You can hold onto the false notion thatthey didn't, I will always maintain they did.

That makes me the bad guy? Well I guess it does.

I am not the one wishing saddam was still around torchering and murdering. I do find it odd that people who claim to be on the side of the poor and tortured,wish he was still around. Oh right. They are noy saying that all. Of course not.

I can only allow my own hypocrisy drift only so far.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

OW 9989153

Good to know they died for a noble cause. You can hold onto the false notion thatthey didn't, I will always maintain they did.

I don't hold that notion and never did and never will. You should not presume that you speak for me. Our troops fought a noble cause because their Commander in Chief obligated the US military plus all taxpaying Americans to providing for the security and law and order in Iraq following his direct and sole decision to do a regime change in Iraq through the deliberate and aggressive use of military force against Iraq in March 2003. Just because Bush was entirely wrong to decide to invade, it does not mean our troops, well over 99% of then, did not fight with honor and courage for the noble cause of trying to give the Iraqis something better than what they had under the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein. But likewise our troops' noble cause is not erased if the Iraqis fail to take advantage of what was provided. Our troops could not sustain that noble cause decade after decade. There had to be a time when Iraqis stepped up and fight their own noble cause and let the Americans go home. Do you dissagree?


OW 9989153

I am not the one wishing saddam was still around torchering and murdering. I do find it odd that people who claim to be on the side of the poor and tortured,wish he was still around. Oh right.

I never wished that Saddam kept on torturing and mustering. You are fabricating a 'wish' for me that I woukd never entertain. I have always agreed with what Hillary Clinton said on the floor of the Senate in October 2002.

I will close with Hillary's few paragraphs that made more sense than what the Decider decided.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want. Senator Clinton October 10, 2002 on the floor of the Senate regarding the AUMF against Iraq vote.

"If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated"

Bush got his resolution and Saddam complied. Senator Clinton was right. But Bush was lying that he wanted the threat eliminated peacefully. It is so plain to see.

 

[Theowl32]

^^^^

Look up there everyone. A liberal claiming he does not wish saddam was still around.

Can you detect the double talking?

 

[Vigilante]

Rush has it right again, as usual!

Rove s Incredible WMD Miscalculation - The Rush Limbaugh Show

 

[whutTHEYsay]

OW 9994472

Look up there everyone. A liberal claiming he does not wish saddam was still around. Can you detect the double talking?

I see a liar claiming "I wish" something that I don't. I explaiIf we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.n exactly why your assumption is worthless, but you have no response other than to repeat the lie.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

OW 9994472

Look up there everyone. A liberal claiming he does not wish saddam was still around.

Are you saying Senator Hillary Clinton is saying (below) that she wishes Saddam Hussein will always be murdering and torturing and never be removed from power?

"If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition."

 

[whutTHEYsay]

VI 9994488

Rush has it right again, as usual!

There are a lot of insiders dumping on Karl Rove here for covering up the news that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They weren't discovered shortly after the invasion. It took a year or two.

Rush is lying. There was no news that Iraq had an active WMD program and evidence of that was found. And *Vigilante sucks in Limbaugh's lies with mouth wide open.

So Limbaugh contends that intelligence official were subordinate to Rove and it was intelligence officials that lied for Rove to cover the real WMD finds up.

It is an incredible Limbaugh mindless ramble - yet more incredible that *Vigilante says Limbaugh is right.


I posted this earlier:

Officials: U.S. didn’t find WMDs, despite claims

NBC News and news services
WASHINGTON — Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday they have no evidence that Iraq produced chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War, despite recent reports from media outlets and Republican lawmakers

 

[Vigilante]

VI 9994488

Rush has it right again, as usual!

There are a lot of insiders dumping on Karl Rove here for covering up the news that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They weren't discovered shortly after the invasion. It took a year or two.

Rush is lying. There was no news that Iraq had an active WMD program and evidence of that was found. And *Vigilante sucks in Limbaugh's lies with mouth wide open.

So Limbaugh contends that intelligence official were subordinate to Rove and it was intelligence officials that lied for Rove to cover the real WMD finds up.

It is an incredible Limbaugh mindless ramble - yet more incredible that *Vigilante says Limbaugh is right.


I posted this earlier:

Officials: U.S. didn’t find WMDs, despite claims

NBC News and news services
WASHINGTON — Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday they have no evidence that Iraq produced chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War, despite recent reports from media outlets and Republican lawmakers

MORE SUBVERSIVE BULLSHIT! Even the N.Y.SLIMES got it right!

Iraq: In 2006, Santorum took to the airwaves to proclaim that the U.S. had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," he said in a June 22 press conference, citing a declassified report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, an intelligence unit in the Defense Department. He even slammed Senate Democrats who had disputed that the weapons were found: "This is an incredibly -- in my mind -- significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false."

We Found Weapons Of Mass Destruction Rick Santorum s Greatest Foreign Policy Hits

 

[Vigilante]

 

[whutTHEYsay]

VI 9994725 regarding
NF 9994683, VI 9994488
9994725

MORE SUBVERSIVE BULLSHIT! Even the N.Y.SLIMES got it right!

Iraq: In 2006, Santorum took to the airwaves to proclaim that the U.S. had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," he said in a June 22 press conference, citing a declassified report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, an intelligence unit in the Defense Department. He even slammed Senate Democrats who had disputed that the weapons were found: "This is an incredibly -- in my mind -- significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false."

We Found Weapons Of Mass Destruction Rick Santorum s Greatest Foreign Policy Hits

Perhaps you read more of that piece than EconChick admits to, but you did not read the part where Santorum's antics were debunked. And I cited a thorough debunking of Santorum earlier on this thread here;

Officials: U.S. didn’t find WMDs, despite claims

NBC News and news services
WASHINGTON — Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday they have no evidence that Iraq produced chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War, despite recent reports from media outlets and Republican lawmakers

You are running from responding to that.

I pointed out that Limbaugh wrote this in your cite:

It took a year or two.

Is Limbaugh right? Do you think?

 

[Vigilante]

VI 9994725 regarding
NF 9994683, VI 9994488
9994725

MORE SUBVERSIVE BULLSHIT! Even the N.Y.SLIMES got it right!

Iraq: In 2006, Santorum took to the airwaves to proclaim that the U.S. had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," he said in a June 22 press conference, citing a declassified report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, an intelligence unit in the Defense Department. He even slammed Senate Democrats who had disputed that the weapons were found: "This is an incredibly -- in my mind -- significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false."

We Found Weapons Of Mass Destruction Rick Santorum s Greatest Foreign Policy Hits

Perhaps you read more of that piece than EconChick admits to, but you did not read the part where Santorum's antics were debunked. And I cited a thorough debunking of Santorum earlier on this thread here;

Officials: U.S. didn’t find WMDs, despite claims

NBC News and news services
WASHINGTON — Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday they have no evidence that Iraq produced chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War, despite recent reports from media outlets and Republican lawmakers

You are running from responding to that.

I pointed out that Limbaugh wrote this in your cite:

It took a year or two.

Is Limbaugh right? Do you think?

Yes, you believe that shit like you believe the Jackass in the White House when he said, "If you like your healthcare, you can keep your healthcare...PERIOD!"

You're another Jackass!

Perhaps you didn't NOTICE the little meme with that RINO Karl Rove telling EXACTLY what his message was....Don't ROCK THE BOAT and it will go away!

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Regarding VI 9994725, NF 9994683, VI 9994488

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

Bush said he had intelligence on March 17 2003 that let him know without a doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from the inspectors at that time.

If true why did it take a year or two for troops to stumble across them if Bush actually had that doubtless intelligence?

Bush can't know Iraq was hiding WMD if he had no clue as to where they were being hidden.

Bush lied about having intelligence like I have been saying.

Limbaugh proves Bush lied.

 

[Vigilante]

Regarding VI 9994725, NF 9994683, VI 9994488

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

Bush said he had intelligence on March 17 2003 that let him know without a doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from the inspectors at that time.

If true why did it take a year or two for troops to stumble across them if Bush actually had that doubtless intelligence?

Bush can't know Iraq was hiding WMD if he had no clue as to where they were being hidden.

Bush lied about having intelligence like I have been saying.

Limbaugh proves Bush lied.

They are STILL finding the WMD in Iraq to this day, you FOOL! Why did the Slimes do an article then?...They HATED BUSH, and now they acquit him of all these false charges! ...England, France and Germany ALL HAD their intelligence networks saying there was WMD... so all those nations intelligence services, were as dumb as you?....I think not!

ISIS Likely Captured Iraqi Chemical Weapons New York Times Confirms

 

[whutTHEYsay]

VI 9995827 regarding NF 9995788, VI 9994725, NF 9994683, VI 9994488

Why did the Slimes do an article then?...They HATED BUSH, and now they acquit him of all these false charges!

ISIS Likely Captured Iraqi Chemical Weapons New York Times Confirms

The New York Times in 2002 2003 was a steno pad for the Bush Cheney drive for war. You are nuts if you truly believe what you wrote. Judith Miller ring a bell?




VI 9995827 regarding NF 9995788, VI 9994725, NF 9994683, VI 9994488

...England, France and Germany ALL HAD their intelligence networks saying there was WMD...

Germany and France did not say that after the 1441 UN inspections were resumed. The French were adamant about continuing the inspection process which had found no evidence of any active WMD programs and or stockpiles of weapons. Bush lied on March 17 2003 that he had intelligence knowing where these stockpiles were.

It is obvious that old 1970's shells buried 20 years earlier after the war with Iran are not what Bush was eluding to. Rove knows that but Limbaugh doesn't.






VI 9995827 regarding NF 9995788, VI 9994725, NF 9994683, VI 9994488

They are STILL finding the WMD in Iraq to this day, you FOOL!

.

No they aren't. The NYTimes explains exactly why they have not.

Read what you cite *Vigilante. That would be the first step in your recovery from being a Bush-Duped-Fool.



This is the lie by Bush when he announced he was starting a ground invasion into Iraq:

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

 

[Mac1958]

.

The war apologists have to equate chemical weapons with nuclear bombs.

The American people were scared into supporting this war because they were told about mushroom clouds.

The American people would not have supported a massive invasion, followed by nation-building, over chemical weapons.

I don't care HOW much is found.

.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

MA 9996245

.

The war apologists have to equate chemical weapons with nuclear bombs.

The American people were scared into supporting this war because they were told about mushroom clouds.

The American people would not have supported a massive invasion, followed by nation-building, over chemical weapons.

I don't care HOW much is found.

.

No CW were found that were used to justify the invasion. They will never find them.

And it should never be conceded that the majority of Americans supported the invasion during the few weeks before Bush announced that he alone decided to invade. In most polls nearly six of ten Americans wanted Bush to give more time to the inspections. Americans held the French, Chinese and Russian views of the permanent members on the UN Security Council. They did not agree with Bush prior to the start of Shock and Awe.

The nuclear WMD issue was pretty much closed by the IAEA by March 17, 2003. Bush gave the reason he decided to invade and it was that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors. He was not referring to rusted old American made shells from the Reagan era.

 

[healthmyths]

OW 9975310 regarding OC 9975298.

It was not an invasion it was a liberation.

Actually it was regime change and we violently flipped the ruling sectarian divide in Iraq's society from Sunni authoritarian control to Shiite authoritarian control. The notion that we liberated Sunnis while at the same time liberating Shiites is a farce. And what is most farcical is the notion that American (mostly non-Islamic) US troops engaged in combat and sustained bombing of Iraq's teeming millions of impoverished Shiites in Sadr City to liberate them is equally absurd.

We unleashed Shiite on Sunni genocide as Sunni families and business owners were driven from Sunni dominated areas of Baghdad. Many of those surviving Sunnis were radicalized by that Shia on Sinni violence and are leaders and IS terrorist fighters today. They want theirproperty and status back.

But your simple-minded notion about the "liberation of Iraq" is so foolish because you are perhaps in agreement with EconChick's presentation that up to 50,000 US troops were needed in 2012 and well into the future in order to preserve the "liberation" gains that were achieved by 2008. That would have created if enacted a scenario where US troops were continuously fighting FOR Shiite males who would not fight to defend their US and UK liberation as long as Americans were willingly sacrificed and American tax-payer financed over several decades of war and involved in Iraq's and the region's centuries long sectarian conflicts.

Your contention is so ignorant of Iraq and the region's violent Sunni/Shia reality the resident utmost expert on Iraq will attempt to defend your assertion that there was no US invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

So why do we have
53,000 troops in Germany...almost 70 years later after WWII?
49,000 troops in Japan?

U.S. military personnel by country
This is so stupid... 1.2 million kids are now alive that would have STARVED under Saddam and YOU want that??

and you were in favor of what Saddam did here?
However, after the First Gulf War (1991), the Iraqi government revived a program to divert the flow of the Tigris River and the Euphrates River away from the marshes. This was done to prevent any remaining militiamen from taking refuge in the marshes, the Badr Brigades and other militias having used them as cover.[citation needed]

The flow southwards from the distributary streams of the Tigris was blocked by large embankments and discharged into the Al-Amarah or Glory Canal, resulting in the loss of two-thirds of the Central Marshes by as early as 1993.[7] A further canal, the Prosperity Canal, was constructed to prevent any overflow into the marsh from the main channel of the Tigris as it ran southwards from Qalat Saleh.[8] By the late 1990s, the Central Marsh had become completely desiccated, suffering the most severe damage of the three main areas of wetland. By 2000, United Nations Environment Programme estimated that 90% of the marshlands had disappeared.
You were happy with this ecological disaster?

And of course NONE OF you that LOVED Saddam had any problems like these people did with him... and you would want him still in power right??
"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic
Of course YOU hate the Iraqi people and LOVED SADDAM and his sons that did this!!!

Ahmad was Uday's chief executioner. Last week, as Iraqis celebrated the death of his former boss and his equally savage younger brother Qusay, he nervously revealed a hideous story. His instructions that day in 1999 were to arrest the two 19-year-olds on the campus of Baghdad's Academy of Fine Arts and deliver them at Radwaniyah. On arrival at the sprawling compound, he was directed to a farm where he found a large cage. Inside, two lions waited. They belonged to Uday. Guards took the two young men from the car and opened the cage door. One of the victims collapsed in terror as they were dragged, screaming and shouting, to meet their fate. Ahmad watched as the students frantically looked for a way of escape. There was none. The lions pounced. 'I saw the head of the first student literally come off his body with the first bite and then had to stand and watch the animals devour the two young men. By the time they were finished there was little left but for the bones and bits and pieces of unwanted flesh,' he recalled last week."
-- Sunday Times, London, July 27, 2003




"Ali would then draw out a pair of pliers and a sharp knife. Gripping the tongue with pliers, he would slice it up with the knife, tossing severed pieces into the street. "'Those punished were too terrified to move, even though they knew I was about to chop off their tongue,' said Ali in his matter-of-fact voice. 'They would just stand there, often praying and calling out for Saddam and Allah to spare them. By then it was too late.

"'I would read them out the verdict and cut off their tongue without any form of anaesthetic. There was always a lot of blood. Some offenders passed out. Others screamed in pain. They would then be given basic medical assistance in an ambulance which would always come with us on such punishment runs. Then they would be thrown in jail.'"

-- Fedayeen Saddam member interviewed in The Sunday Times (London), April 20, 2003
Saddam has reduced his people to abject poverty.
He wiped out families, villages, cities and cultures, and drove four million people into exile.
He killed between 100,000 and 200,000 Kurds. He killed as many as 300,000 Shiites in the uprising after the Persian Gulf war. He killed or displaced 200,000 of the 250,000 marsh Arabs who had created a unique, centuries-old culture in the south. He drained the marshes, an environmental treasure, and turned them into a desert.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

VI 9995760 regarding NF 9995160, VI 9994725, NF 9994683, VI 9994488, VI 9994725

. Yes, you believe that shit like you believe the Jackass in the White House when he said, "If you like your healthcare, you can keep your healthcare...PERIOD!" You're another Jackass!

Ok foul mouth, what is not true from all that I have posted? I realize you cannot answer questions regarding facts and truth, but it should be pointed out the fact that you can't.






VI 9995760 regarding NF 9995160, VI 9994725, NF 9994683, VI 9994488, VI 9994725

. Perhaps you didn't NOTICE the little meme with that RINO Karl Rove telling EXACTLY what his message was....Don't ROCK THE BOAT and it will go away!

No. I noticed that. Rush is lying to you about Rove too. Are you telling us that GWB didn't know about what that moron Santorum was clambering about?

Why did Bush say this in late 2010? ... "No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," ...and. "I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."

If they found them, Bush wouldn't have that sickening feeling.

Source for Bush quote: BBC News - George W Bush had sickening feeling over WMD lack


Are you not capable of seeing when Rush Limbaugh is lying to you? The main lie in the cited paragraphs is Bolded and Underlined:

RUSH: Now, I want to be clear about something. The weapons of mass destruction The Daily Beast is talking about is not the same weapons that both Republicans and Democrats and every intelligence service in the world claimed were being manufactured by Saddam, 1998-2003. These are not the WMD we're talking about. These were basically chemical weapons that are prior to 1991. It doesn't matter. They were found in 2004. They were discovered by US troops in 2004 and they show that Saddam was investing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.

They show that Saddam was in violation of all of those UN resolutions. He was in violation of the first Gulf War ceasefire. And Saddam's violation of the first Gulf War ceasefire, including shooting at our planes, was enough on its own to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This is so horrible what's happened here. So the war for weapons of mass destruction commences in 2003, shortly after there aren't any, and the whole premise dies and the Bush administration gets creamed for five years and everybody knows it's not the case and nobody stands up and says, "Wait a minute, all these allegations are false."

They're just allowed to stand. The American people have no choice but than to believe this crap they're being told, when in fact Saddam Hussein was doing and had done pretty much everything he was being accused of that justified that invasion and justified getting rid of him.

Why would Bush still say in late 2010 that he is sickened every time he thinks about the reality that no WMD were found in Iraq after he ordered the invasion.

Limbaugh's buffoonery does not try to explain Bush's admission that no WMD were found. And his ditto/heads won't ask their buffoon why that is.