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

[edthecynic]

I thought it was "weapons of mass destruction." That includes chemical weapons. I could be wrong, but I don't recall them specifying the exact type of weapon, just WMDs.

weap·on of mass de·struc·tion
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction

1. a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

And since the Ws were not capable of MD they were not WMDs by your own definition. The OP's own link shows pictures of the "wounded" unmarked and quite alive!

Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling, left, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, far right, and another member of an ordnance disposal team being treated for exposure to a chemical agent in August 2008.
via Andrew T. Goldman

What's your point? That really doesn't mean anything. Exposure can mean just coming into contact with a suspicious item. Pointless post.

The article cited in the OP calls them "WOUNDED."

From the Op's link:

"From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule."

 

[healthmyths]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

You and Saddam both agree. They never did destroy WMDs... Saddam and his ilk simply said.."remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction." KEY word.. "possess WMDs"!
Saddam no longer "possessed" WMDs. If they had destroyed the WMDs.. then there should have been documentation AFTER Saddam was gone to prove Iraq "destroyed"... there has not been ONE SHRED of proof there was destruction of WMDs.
Where are the documents showing the "destruction"???

 

[healthmyths]

I mean how absolutely dumb are Obamatrons/MSM !
Here they have a president THAT wants by his actions Americans to die!
Proof??? Why would Obama say our "military is air raiding villages killing civilians"???? Who did that help? Certainly not our military!
Definitely our enemies. Is it any wonder the war in Iraq was prolonged when traitors like Obama and his uninformed passed on to the terrorists negative perceptions of our military? Murtha.."cold blooded killer"! Kerry "terrorizing kids and children" ! How can ANY sane normal person ever believe that calling our troops civilian killers, terrorists would be helpful? They wouldn't and that's why idiots like Obama et.al. and supporters did it!
They wanted our troops to be killed so the terrorists would win! Pretty obvious to anyone with common sense!
During WWII there was a very simple common phrase..."Loose Lips can sink ships"!
Well during Liberation of Iraq we had Members of Congress HELPING the terrorists !

8220 Air-raiding villages and killing civilians 8221 - ABC News

In Nashua, NH, Monday, Obama said that the U.S. has “gotta get the job done” in Afghanistan which “requires us to have enough troops that we’re not just air raiding villages and killing civilians which is causing enormous problems there. It means that we have enough civilian support, agricultural specialists, people who are engineers, people who are building schools and so forth to help the Afghani government do a better job of delivering on behalf of its people.”

Recall at the time in 2007 there were several high profile raids that killed hundreds of civilians and the Afghanistan Government was very upset about it. So in this instance then candidate Obama was advocating for an increase, or and escalation of troop levels.

MAKES no difference! Words have meaning....the above WERE EXCEPTIONS not planned... but the enemy doesn't care!
They like you take these words as meaning all the time... everyone!!!
So if Obama is stupid enough NOT to understand that, then that shows HE was never presidential material and now we've had further examples of his big mouth blunders..." cambridge police stupid"... right! "Corpse-men"... right!

These are examples of Obama be a dumb f...k more interested in POLITICAL office running then running the office!

Words have meanings.
Regardless maybe of his intentions..(I don't think so..he hates the military!!!) but it certainly shows his
stupidity as the others I quoted.
YOU just don't say things to encourage the further killings of US military... unless you are stupid or running for office!

Why would Obama say our "military is air raiding villages killing civilians"????

As I proved for you again for the umptenth time, President Obama didn't say that. When you lie about what was said, that encourages, and in the terrorist minds, justifies further attacks on US soldiers and civilians.

And you keep forgetting that I'm saying he was so totally ignorant of his use of the phrase because he was interested in his "political" credits more then how the words could kill US soldiers!

This is exactly what he said:
In Nashua, NH, Monday, Obama said that the U.S. has “gotta get the job done” in Afghanistan which “requires us to have enough troops that we’re not just air raiding villages and killing civilians which is causing enormous problems there. It means that we have enough civilian support, agricultural specialists, people who are engineers, people who are building schools and so forth to help the Afghani government do a better job of delivering on behalf of its people.”
HE didn't have to say ONE f...king negative thing about "air raiding villages and killing civilians"!!
Everyone including the terrorists know that.
Here is what HE should have said..
The U.S. has gotta get the job done... it means we have enough civilian support,etc..."
YOU don't need to give the terrorists ONE single statement as "air raiding villages and killing civilians"!
All that did was HELP the terrorists because NO ONE remembers the rest of the statement.
WHY was it necessary to deprecate the U.S. Military?
Either Obama is a dumb f...k (which I am sure he is ) AND OR he was saying that for political gain which is what he did it for!
Accusing the US of air raiding villages, killing civilians " was absolutely stupid and totally unnecessary... but Obama wasn't the ONLY dummy!

These statements WERE NOT necessary and helped ONLY the terrorists!
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

Idiots like the above either were dumb in understanding their words had power to encourage or they didn't care! Either way it was wrong!

 

[BlindBoo]

I mean how absolutely dumb are Obamatrons/MSM !
Here they have a president THAT wants by his actions Americans to die!
Proof??? Why would Obama say our "military is air raiding villages killing civilians"???? Who did that help? Certainly not our military!
Definitely our enemies. Is it any wonder the war in Iraq was prolonged when traitors like Obama and his uninformed passed on to the terrorists negative perceptions of our military? Murtha.."cold blooded killer"! Kerry "terrorizing kids and children" ! How can ANY sane normal person ever believe that calling our troops civilian killers, terrorists would be helpful? They wouldn't and that's why idiots like Obama et.al. and supporters did it!
They wanted our troops to be killed so the terrorists would win! Pretty obvious to anyone with common sense!
During WWII there was a very simple common phrase..."Loose Lips can sink ships"!
Well during Liberation of Iraq we had Members of Congress HELPING the terrorists !

8220 Air-raiding villages and killing civilians 8221 - ABC News

In Nashua, NH, Monday, Obama said that the U.S. has “gotta get the job done” in Afghanistan which “requires us to have enough troops that we’re not just air raiding villages and killing civilians which is causing enormous problems there. It means that we have enough civilian support, agricultural specialists, people who are engineers, people who are building schools and so forth to help the Afghani government do a better job of delivering on behalf of its people.”

Recall at the time in 2007 there were several high profile raids that killed hundreds of civilians and the Afghanistan Government was very upset about it. So in this instance then candidate Obama was advocating for an increase, or and escalation of troop levels.

MAKES no difference! Words have meaning....the above WERE EXCEPTIONS not planned... but the enemy doesn't care!
They like you take these words as meaning all the time... everyone!!!
So if Obama is stupid enough NOT to understand that, then that shows HE was never presidential material and now we've had further examples of his big mouth blunders..." cambridge police stupid"... right! "Corpse-men"... right!

These are examples of Obama be a dumb f...k more interested in POLITICAL office running then running the office!

Words have meanings.
Regardless maybe of his intentions..(I don't think so..he hates the military!!!) but it certainly shows his
stupidity as the others I quoted.
YOU just don't say things to encourage the further killings of US military... unless you are stupid or running for office!

Why would Obama say our "military is air raiding villages killing civilians"????

As I proved for you again for the umptenth time, President Obama didn't say that. When you lie about what was said, that encourages, and in the terrorist minds, justifies further attacks on US soldiers and civilians.

And you keep forgetting that I'm saying he was so totally ignorant of his use of the phrase because he was interested in his "political" credits more then how the words could kill US soldiers!

This is exactly what he said:
In Nashua, NH, Monday, Obama said that the U.S. has “gotta get the job done” in Afghanistan which “requires us to have enough troops that we’re not just air raiding villages and killing civilians which is causing enormous problems there. It means that we have enough civilian support, agricultural specialists, people who are engineers, people who are building schools and so forth to help the Afghani government do a better job of delivering on behalf of its people.”
HE didn't have to say ONE f...king negative thing about "air raiding villages and killing civilians"!!
Everyone including the terrorists know that.
Here is what HE should have said..
The U.S. has gotta get the job done... it means we have enough civilian support,etc..."
YOU don't need to give the terrorists ONE single statement as "air raiding villages and killing civilians"!
All that did was HELP the terrorists because NO ONE remembers the rest of the statement.
WHY was it necessary to deprecate the U.S. Military?
Either Obama is a dumb f...k (which I am sure he is ) AND OR he was saying that for political gain which is what he did it for!
Accusing the US of air raiding villages, killing civilians " was absolutely stupid and totally unnecessary... but Obama wasn't the ONLY dummy!

These statements WERE NOT necessary and helped ONLY the terrorists!
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

Idiots like the above either were dumb in understanding their words had power to encourage or they didn't care! Either way it was wrong!

I expect our enemies to lie about what our politicians say, not Americans.

 

[ChrisL]

I thought it was "weapons of mass destruction." That includes chemical weapons. I could be wrong, but I don't recall them specifying the exact type of weapon, just WMDs.

weap·on of mass de·struc·tion
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction

1. a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

And since the Ws were not capable of MD they were not WMDs by your own definition. The OP's own link shows pictures of the "wounded" unmarked and quite alive!

Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling, left, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, far right, and another member of an ordnance disposal team being treated for exposure to a chemical agent in August 2008.
via Andrew T. Goldman

What's your point? That really doesn't mean anything. Exposure can mean just coming into contact with a suspicious item. Pointless post.

The article cited in the OP calls them "WOUNDED."

From the Op's link:

"From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule."

Maybe they had respiratory injuries or something. I don't know. Maybe you can't see their wounds. What is your point exactly?

Saddam couldn't have possibly had chemical weapons? It is actually documented that there was evidence of chemical weapons found, just not the weapons themselves. Also old bombed out factories where they were suspected of perhaps even producing some chemical weapons. It's certainly much more difficult to believe that the United States government would lie than it is that Saddam Hussein at least HAD a stock pile of chemical weapons at one point.

 

[healthmyths]

I mean how absolutely dumb are Obamatrons/MSM !
Here they have a president THAT wants by his actions Americans to die!
Proof??? Why would Obama say our "military is air raiding villages killing civilians"???? Who did that help? Certainly not our military!
Definitely our enemies. Is it any wonder the war in Iraq was prolonged when traitors like Obama and his uninformed passed on to the terrorists negative perceptions of our military? Murtha.."cold blooded killer"! Kerry "terrorizing kids and children" ! How can ANY sane normal person ever believe that calling our troops civilian killers, terrorists would be helpful? They wouldn't and that's why idiots like Obama et.al. and supporters did it!
They wanted our troops to be killed so the terrorists would win! Pretty obvious to anyone with common sense!
During WWII there was a very simple common phrase..."Loose Lips can sink ships"!
Well during Liberation of Iraq we had Members of Congress HELPING the terrorists !

8220 Air-raiding villages and killing civilians 8221 - ABC News

In Nashua, NH, Monday, Obama said that the U.S. has “gotta get the job done” in Afghanistan which “requires us to have enough troops that we’re not just air raiding villages and killing civilians which is causing enormous problems there. It means that we have enough civilian support, agricultural specialists, people who are engineers, people who are building schools and so forth to help the Afghani government do a better job of delivering on behalf of its people.”

Recall at the time in 2007 there were several high profile raids that killed hundreds of civilians and the Afghanistan Government was very upset about it. So in this instance then candidate Obama was advocating for an increase, or and escalation of troop levels.

MAKES no difference! Words have meaning....the above WERE EXCEPTIONS not planned... but the enemy doesn't care!
They like you take these words as meaning all the time... everyone!!!
So if Obama is stupid enough NOT to understand that, then that shows HE was never presidential material and now we've had further examples of his big mouth blunders..." cambridge police stupid"... right! "Corpse-men"... right!

These are examples of Obama be a dumb f...k more interested in POLITICAL office running then running the office!

Words have meanings.
Regardless maybe of his intentions..(I don't think so..he hates the military!!!) but it certainly shows his
stupidity as the others I quoted.
YOU just don't say things to encourage the further killings of US military... unless you are stupid or running for office!

Why would Obama say our "military is air raiding villages killing civilians"????

As I proved for you again for the umptenth time, President Obama didn't say that. When you lie about what was said, that encourages, and in the terrorist minds, justifies further attacks on US soldiers and civilians.

And you keep forgetting that I'm saying he was so totally ignorant of his use of the phrase because he was interested in his "political" credits more then how the words could kill US soldiers!

This is exactly what he said:
In Nashua, NH, Monday, Obama said that the U.S. has “gotta get the job done” in Afghanistan which “requires us to have enough troops that we’re not just air raiding villages and killing civilians which is causing enormous problems there. It means that we have enough civilian support, agricultural specialists, people who are engineers, people who are building schools and so forth to help the Afghani government do a better job of delivering on behalf of its people.”
HE didn't have to say ONE f...king negative thing about "air raiding villages and killing civilians"!!
Everyone including the terrorists know that.
Here is what HE should have said..
The U.S. has gotta get the job done... it means we have enough civilian support,etc..."
YOU don't need to give the terrorists ONE single statement as "air raiding villages and killing civilians"!
All that did was HELP the terrorists because NO ONE remembers the rest of the statement.
WHY was it necessary to deprecate the U.S. Military?
Either Obama is a dumb f...k (which I am sure he is ) AND OR he was saying that for political gain which is what he did it for!
Accusing the US of air raiding villages, killing civilians " was absolutely stupid and totally unnecessary... but Obama wasn't the ONLY dummy!

These statements WERE NOT necessary and helped ONLY the terrorists!
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

Idiots like the above either were dumb in understanding their words had power to encourage or they didn't care! Either way it was wrong!

I expect our enemies to lie about what our politicians say, not Americans.

And I expected more intelligent research on Obama especially considering we've been told his the smartest president ever!
I mean either he was an idiot to make out the US military methodically "air-raiding villages killing children" or he did it on purpose.
If you as a supporter of this idiot don't comprehend OBAMA is more inclined to think BAD of the US and our military i.e. why bring it up for example... all he had do is NOT bring it up! But either he doesn't LIKE American/military (which is what I know..) or he was plain stupid which should have been obvious by making those statements.
I and anyone else including the MSM never lied about what he said!
Those were his exact words. I am not stupid enough to denigrate our military especially when situations like what Obama was describing are NOT intentional. It appeared that was what Obama though thought! Our military intended to air raid villages killing civilians.
And that's what the enemy repeated Obama said US military air-raiding villages and killing civilians!

Again... YOU have to be pretty stupid not to realize when you bad mouth the USA/Military you are making the enemies happy!
I think Obama isn't stupid by evil! He fervently believes the USA is the major cause of all the world's ills and he thinks he must correct them!
How first of all pompous and secondly how grossly grossly misinformed!

 

[edthecynic]

I thought it was "weapons of mass destruction." That includes chemical weapons. I could be wrong, but I don't recall them specifying the exact type of weapon, just WMDs.

weap·on of mass de·struc·tion
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction

1. a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

And since the Ws were not capable of MD they were not WMDs by your own definition. The OP's own link shows pictures of the "wounded" unmarked and quite alive!

Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling, left, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, far right, and another member of an ordnance disposal team being treated for exposure to a chemical agent in August 2008.
via Andrew T. Goldman

What's your point? That really doesn't mean anything. Exposure can mean just coming into contact with a suspicious item. Pointless post.

The article cited in the OP calls them "WOUNDED."

From the Op's link:

"From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule."

Maybe they had respiratory injuries or something. I don't know. Maybe you can't see their wounds. What is your point exactly?

My point exactly is that they were not DEAD and the very definition of a WMD that YOU posted says "capable of causing widespread death."

 

[BlindBoo]

8220 Air-raiding villages and killing civilians 8221 - ABC News

In Nashua, NH, Monday, Obama said that the U.S. has “gotta get the job done” in Afghanistan which “requires us to have enough troops that we’re not just air raiding villages and killing civilians which is causing enormous problems there. It means that we have enough civilian support, agricultural specialists, people who are engineers, people who are building schools and so forth to help the Afghani government do a better job of delivering on behalf of its people.”

Recall at the time in 2007 there were several high profile raids that killed hundreds of civilians and the Afghanistan Government was very upset about it. So in this instance then candidate Obama was advocating for an increase, or and escalation of troop levels.

MAKES no difference! Words have meaning....the above WERE EXCEPTIONS not planned... but the enemy doesn't care!
They like you take these words as meaning all the time... everyone!!!
So if Obama is stupid enough NOT to understand that, then that shows HE was never presidential material and now we've had further examples of his big mouth blunders..." cambridge police stupid"... right! "Corpse-men"... right!

These are examples of Obama be a dumb f...k more interested in POLITICAL office running then running the office!

Words have meanings.
Regardless maybe of his intentions..(I don't think so..he hates the military!!!) but it certainly shows his
stupidity as the others I quoted.
YOU just don't say things to encourage the further killings of US military... unless you are stupid or running for office!

Why would Obama say our "military is air raiding villages killing civilians"????

As I proved for you again for the umptenth time, President Obama didn't say that. When you lie about what was said, that encourages, and in the terrorist minds, justifies further attacks on US soldiers and civilians.

And you keep forgetting that I'm saying he was so totally ignorant of his use of the phrase because he was interested in his "political" credits more then how the words could kill US soldiers!

This is exactly what he said:
In Nashua, NH, Monday, Obama said that the U.S. has “gotta get the job done” in Afghanistan which “requires us to have enough troops that we’re not just air raiding villages and killing civilians which is causing enormous problems there. It means that we have enough civilian support, agricultural specialists, people who are engineers, people who are building schools and so forth to help the Afghani government do a better job of delivering on behalf of its people.”
HE didn't have to say ONE f...king negative thing about "air raiding villages and killing civilians"!!
Everyone including the terrorists know that.
Here is what HE should have said..
The U.S. has gotta get the job done... it means we have enough civilian support,etc..."
YOU don't need to give the terrorists ONE single statement as "air raiding villages and killing civilians"!
All that did was HELP the terrorists because NO ONE remembers the rest of the statement.
WHY was it necessary to deprecate the U.S. Military?
Either Obama is a dumb f...k (which I am sure he is ) AND OR he was saying that for political gain which is what he did it for!
Accusing the US of air raiding villages, killing civilians " was absolutely stupid and totally unnecessary... but Obama wasn't the ONLY dummy!

These statements WERE NOT necessary and helped ONLY the terrorists!
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

Idiots like the above either were dumb in understanding their words had power to encourage or they didn't care! Either way it was wrong!

I expect our enemies to lie about what our politicians say, not Americans.

And I expected more intelligent research on Obama especially considering we've been told his the smartest president ever!
I mean either he was an idiot to make out the US military methodically "air-raiding villages killing children" or he did it on purpose.
If you as a supporter of this idiot don't comprehend OBAMA is more inclined to think BAD of the US and our military i.e. why bring it up for example... all he had do is NOT bring it up! But either he doesn't LIKE American/military (which is what I know..) or he was plain stupid which should have been obvious by making those statements.
I and anyone else including the MSM never lied about what he said!
Those were his exact words. I am not stupid enough to denigrate our military especially when situations like what Obama was describing are NOT intentional. It appeared that was what Obama though thought! Our military intended to air raid villages killing civilians.
And that's what the enemy repeated Obama said US military air-raiding villages and killing civilians!

Again... YOU have to be pretty stupid not to realize when you bad mouth the USA/Military you are making the enemies happy!
I think Obama isn't stupid by evil! He fervently believes the USA is the major cause of all the world's ills and he thinks he must correct them!
How first of all pompous and secondly how grossly grossly misinformed!

"US military methodically "air-raiding villages killing children" " More made up lies by America's enemies!


Right right, cause them terrorist in Afghanistan can't read a newspaper or nothing they all rely on presidential hopefuls.......

Air raid kills 21 civilians in Afghanistan governor Reuters

BBC NEWS South Asia Karzai angry over West s tactics

Dozens of Afghan civilians die in air raids residents Reuters

 

[bravoactual]

The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

1. MAY 2004 Two soldiers exposed to sarin from a shell near Baghdad’s Yarmouk neighborhood.
2. SUMMER 2006 Over 2,400 nerve-agent rockets found at this former Republican Guard compound.
3. JULY 2008 Six Marines exposed to mustard agent from an artillery shell at an abandoned bunker.
4. AUGUST 2008 Five American soldiers exposed to mustard agent while destroying a weapons cache.
5. 2010 OR EARLY 2011 Hundreds of mustard rounds discovered in a container at this Iraqi security compound.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

Read the piece in the NYT earlier. Spot on.

The people who believe the lies of bush, cheney, rumsfeld, rice, and tenet needed to believe the lies...they wanted to believe the lies. Without the lies they had nothing.

They still have nothing...

 

[Uncensored2008]

I expect our enemies to lie about what our politicians say, not Americans.

Yet you and Obama have lied incessantly.

Fact is, you have zero honor or integrity. Party is too important to you to allow ethics or honesty interfere.

 

[healthmyths]

MAKES no difference! Words have meaning....the above WERE EXCEPTIONS not planned... but the enemy doesn't care!
They like you take these words as meaning all the time... everyone!!!
So if Obama is stupid enough NOT to understand that, then that shows HE was never presidential material and now we've had further examples of his big mouth blunders..." cambridge police stupid"... right! "Corpse-men"... right!

These are examples of Obama be a dumb f...k more interested in POLITICAL office running then running the office!

Words have meanings.
Regardless maybe of his intentions..(I don't think so..he hates the military!!!) but it certainly shows his
stupidity as the others I quoted.
YOU just don't say things to encourage the further killings of US military... unless you are stupid or running for office!

Why would Obama say our "military is air raiding villages killing civilians"????

As I proved for you again for the umptenth time, President Obama didn't say that. When you lie about what was said, that encourages, and in the terrorist minds, justifies further attacks on US soldiers and civilians.

And you keep forgetting that I'm saying he was so totally ignorant of his use of the phrase because he was interested in his "political" credits more then how the words could kill US soldiers!

This is exactly what he said:
In Nashua, NH, Monday, Obama said that the U.S. has “gotta get the job done” in Afghanistan which “requires us to have enough troops that we’re not just air raiding villages and killing civilians which is causing enormous problems there. It means that we have enough civilian support, agricultural specialists, people who are engineers, people who are building schools and so forth to help the Afghani government do a better job of delivering on behalf of its people.”
HE didn't have to say ONE f...king negative thing about "air raiding villages and killing civilians"!!
Everyone including the terrorists know that.
Here is what HE should have said..
The U.S. has gotta get the job done... it means we have enough civilian support,etc..."
YOU don't need to give the terrorists ONE single statement as "air raiding villages and killing civilians"!
All that did was HELP the terrorists because NO ONE remembers the rest of the statement.
WHY was it necessary to deprecate the U.S. Military?
Either Obama is a dumb f...k (which I am sure he is ) AND OR he was saying that for political gain which is what he did it for!
Accusing the US of air raiding villages, killing civilians " was absolutely stupid and totally unnecessary... but Obama wasn't the ONLY dummy!

These statements WERE NOT necessary and helped ONLY the terrorists!
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

Idiots like the above either were dumb in understanding their words had power to encourage or they didn't care! Either way it was wrong!

I expect our enemies to lie about what our politicians say, not Americans.

And I expected more intelligent research on Obama especially considering we've been told his the smartest president ever!
I mean either he was an idiot to make out the US military methodically "air-raiding villages killing children" or he did it on purpose.
If you as a supporter of this idiot don't comprehend OBAMA is more inclined to think BAD of the US and our military i.e. why bring it up for example... all he had do is NOT bring it up! But either he doesn't LIKE American/military (which is what I know..) or he was plain stupid which should have been obvious by making those statements.
I and anyone else including the MSM never lied about what he said!
Those were his exact words. I am not stupid enough to denigrate our military especially when situations like what Obama was describing are NOT intentional. It appeared that was what Obama though thought! Our military intended to air raid villages killing civilians.
And that's what the enemy repeated Obama said US military air-raiding villages and killing civilians!

Again... YOU have to be pretty stupid not to realize when you bad mouth the USA/Military you are making the enemies happy!
I think Obama isn't stupid by evil! He fervently believes the USA is the major cause of all the world's ills and he thinks he must correct them!
How first of all pompous and secondly how grossly grossly misinformed!

"US military methodically "air-raiding villages killing children" " More made up lies by America's enemies!


Right right, cause them terrorist in Afghanistan can't read a newspaper or nothing they all rely on presidential hopefuls.......

Air raid kills 21 civilians in Afghanistan governor Reuters

BBC NEWS South Asia Karzai angry over West s tactics

Dozens of Afghan civilians die in air raids residents Reuters

Doesn't excuse at all the stupidity of an American Senator blasting the US military! Or these other idiots blasting our military.
What other countries say we can't control... but idiots like Obama and more importantly idiots like you that EXCUSE this gross and
totally irresponsible behavior ... you can't be trusted!
All you want is Bush's liver...heart..spleen..etc. such a hatred for one man is unfathomable! To such a degree you would have other
Americans killed JUST to prove Bush was wrong! That is so totally unthinkable that you have such hatred for one person that
you helped kill 4,000 Americans and YOU and the Obamas et.al.. DID!
When YOU agree with Obama et.al. you are helping to kill our troops. Doesn't hurt Bush... hurt the military and the soldiers who had
to put up with your totally ignorant comments and then KNOW that the enemy is using these comments to recruit more terrorists!
Again you tell me what GOOD came from these comments:
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
That comment DID NOTHING for the soldier but paint soldiers as terrorists!

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” Think once about it... he called our troops cold blooded killers!

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

War is lost! How f...king helpful to the enemy!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Pt 10013514 regarding NF 10011083, Pt425 10010716 Ma 9975365, HM 9975319, Ma 9975283

That's all well and good if you're going to secong guess what the president did at the time, but he made a desicion based on what information he had.

"It's a SLAM DUNK CASE!!"... according to George Tenet as I recall.

I'm proud of what we did. We freed millions of people from a despotic psycopath and his sadist sons. The fact remains that the UN inspectors failed to uncover and ensure the destruction of the munitions. That's the bottom line.

You should be proud of serving in uniform to defend our country and that includes what you may have done on the ground in Iraq. The US military made the best of what was handed to them. You did what the government asked you to do. But when the government asks the military to do something that could have been resolved by peaceful means then it is proper to question and criticize the government in my view.

We don't have any moral authority for deciding who to liberate and when and how. We didn't liberate the Sunnis. We did not liberate the Kurds in 2003. They had autonomy from Baghdad long before that. It is questionable whether we liberated Shiites. Our invasion brought with it a Shiite militia invasion from Iran. Wealthy Shiites likely welcomed Saddam's removal, but not so much the impoverished Shiites from the slums in Sadr City and elsewhere in Iraq. Maliki solidified his power through his alliances with Shiite militias both from Iraq and Iran. That was not 'liberation' for millions as you wish to describe it. The only true justification for the 2003 invasion had been based on the threat from Iraq's continued possession of chem/bio weapons allegedly being hidden from inspectors. It is not forgivable that Bush did not use military force as a last resort when those inspections were working better than ever. And definitely better than US intelligence officers could know at the time.

 

[healthmyths]

Pt 10013514 regarding NF 10011083, Pt425 10010716 Ma 9975365, HM 9975319, Ma 9975283

That's all well and good if you're going to secong guess what the president did at the time, but he made a desicion based on what information he had.

"It's a SLAM DUNK CASE!!"... according to George Tenet as I recall.

I'm proud of what we did. We freed millions of people from a despotic psycopath and his sadist sons. The fact remains that the UN inspectors failed to uncover and ensure the destruction of the munitions. That's the bottom line.

You should be proud of serving in uniform to defend our country and that includes what you may have done on the ground in Iraq. The US military made the best of what was handed to them. You did what the government asked you to do. But when the government asks the military to do something that could have been resolved by peaceful means then it is proper to question and criticize the government in my view.

We don't have any moral authority for deciding who to liberate and when and how. We didn't liberate the Sunnis. We did not liberate the Kurds in 2003. They had autonomy from Baghdad long before that. It is questionable whether we liberated Shiites. Our invasion brought with it a Shiite militia invasion from Iran. Wealthy Shiites likely welcomed Saddam's removal, but not so much the impoverished Shiites from the slums in Sadr City and elsewhere in Iraq. Maliki solidified his power through his alliances with Shiite militias both from Iraq and Iran. That was not 'liberation' for millions as you wish to describe it. The only true justification for the 2003 invasion had been based on the threat from Iraq's continued possession of chem/bio weapons allegedly being hidden from inspectors. It is not forgivable that Bush did not use military force as a last resort when those inspections were working better than ever. And definitely better than US intelligence officers could know at the time.

I'm sorry but all your words mean NOTHING to the 1.2 million children that WOULD HAVE STARVED because Saddam intransigence to certify WMDs were destroyed.
He never did certify that.
The letter supposedly from Naji Sabri Minister gave in September 19, 2002 - It NEVER clearly stated that Iraq would certify WMDs were destroyed..it said "to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction." Didn't say they were destroyed, but
no longer in possession of Iraq! And easily without inspection brought back from where they were, i.e. Syria.

If people like you had your way Saddam would still be starving those 1.2 million children that WERE SAVED because of the Liberation of Iraq!
In five years 576,000 children starved BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!

The sanctions were imposed by the Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Led by the United States, the Council has rejected many Iraqi appeals to lift the restrictions, which have crippled the economy, until Iraq accounts for all its weapons of mass destruction and United Nations inspectors can certify that they have been destroyed in accordance with several Council resolutions.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - New York Times

So you people bickering about THE ONLY thing you can hang your hat "no WMDs" are totally forgetting 1.2 million children that are alive
today because of Bush's Liberation of Iraq.

 

[ninja007]

someone should make a complete list of all the libs who wanted the US to go to war with S.H.

 

[ninja007]

In March 2003, after Iraq allowed United Nations inspectors to return and it was becoming apparent that there were no WMDs to be found, President Bush decided to invade Iraq anyway. Reid rushed to the president's support, claiming that - despite its clear violation of the United Nations Charter - the invasion was "lawful" and that he "commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President."

Despite all this, the Democrats voted to make Reid their leader in the Senate, where he now holds the powerful post of majority leader.

It is also important to recognize that not everyone in Congress voted to authorize the invasion. There were the 21 Senate Democrats - along with one Republican and one Independent - who voted against the war resolution. And 126 of 207 House Democrats voted against the resolution as well. In total, then, a majority of Democrats in Congress defied their leadership by saying no to war. This means that the Democrats who did support the war, despite being over-represented in leadership positions and among future presidential contenders, were part of a right-wing minority and did not represent the mainstream of their party.

The resolution backed by Reid, Biden, Clinton, Kerry and other Democratic Senate leaders also claimed that "the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States ... or provide them to international terrorists who would do so … combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself." In other words, those who supported this resolution believed, or claimed to believe, that an impoverished country, which had eliminated its stockpiles of banned weapons, destroyed its medium- and long-range missiles and eliminated its WMD programs more than a decade earlier, and had been suffering under the strictest international sanctions in world history for more than a dozen years, somehow threatened the national security of a superpower located more than 6,000 miles away. Furthermore, these members of Congress believed, or claimed to believe, that this supposed threat was so great that the United States had no choice but to launch an invasion of that country, overthrow its government, and place its people under military occupation in the name of "self-defense," regardless of whether Iraq allowed inspectors back into the county to engage in unfettered inspections to prove that the WMDs, WMD programs and weapons systems no longer existed.


Democrats Share the Blame for Tragedy of Iraq War

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HM422 10010505 regarding NF 10009840

Inspectors NEVER found ANY proof WMDs were destroyed.

NF428 10011012 regarding HM422 10010505.

Of course they didn't. Bush cut off the peaceful process of disarmament verification and long term monitoring in order to start a war to verify that Iraq had nothing.

Healthmyths has not responded to the above statement in my post 428. I must assume therefore that Healthmyths cannot figure out why he is complaining that the inspectors did not find 'proof' that the ancient chemicals were destroyed unilaterally by Iraq in the early 1990s since it was Bush 43 in March 2003 that put an end to the UN inspectors ongoing work to find the answers.

 

[healthmyths]

In March 2003, after Iraq allowed United Nations inspectors to return and it was becoming apparent that there were no WMDs to be found, President Bush decided to invade Iraq anyway. Reid rushed to the president's support, claiming that - despite its clear violation of the United Nations Charter - the invasion was "lawful" and that he "commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President."

Despite all this, the Democrats voted to make Reid their leader in the Senate, where he now holds the powerful post of majority leader.

It is also important to recognize that not everyone in Congress voted to authorize the invasion. There were the 21 Senate Democrats - along with one Republican and one Independent - who voted against the war resolution. And 126 of 207 House Democrats voted against the resolution as well. In total, then, a majority of Democrats in Congress defied their leadership by saying no to war. This means that the Democrats who did support the war, despite being over-represented in leadership positions and among future presidential contenders, were part of a right-wing minority and did not represent the mainstream of their party.

The resolution backed by Reid, Biden, Clinton, Kerry and other Democratic Senate leaders also claimed that "the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States ... or provide them to international terrorists who would do so … combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself." In other words, those who supported this resolution believed, or claimed to believe, that an impoverished country, which had eliminated its stockpiles of banned weapons, destroyed its medium- and long-range missiles and eliminated its WMD programs more than a decade earlier, and had been suffering under the strictest international sanctions in world history for more than a dozen years, somehow threatened the national security of a superpower located more than 6,000 miles away. Furthermore, these members of Congress believed, or claimed to believe, that this supposed threat was so great that the United States had no choice but to launch an invasion of that country, overthrow its government, and place its people under military occupation in the name of "self-defense," regardless of whether Iraq allowed inspectors back into the county to engage in unfettered inspections to prove that the WMDs, WMD programs and weapons systems no longer existed.


Democrats Share the Blame for Tragedy of Iraq War

1.2 million children would be dead today if you had your way as Saddam would still be in office.
Honestly I am convinced every one of the US soldiers that died because traitors like Obama,Kerry,Murtha,Durbin, Reid encouraging the
terrorists by calling OUR soldiers killers of children, air-raiding villages, killing civilians..etc.. would have said:

A)" I gladly give up my life to save these 1.2 million children and
B) I am pissed as hell at those idiots that called us baby killers, terrorists, and that war was lost! They are traitors and deserve punishment!

In five years 576,000 children starved BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
The sanctions were imposed by the Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Led by the United States, the Council has rejected many Iraqi appeals to lift the restrictions, which have crippled the economy, until Iraq accounts for all its weapons of mass destruction and United Nations inspectors can certify that they have been destroyed in accordance with several Council resolutions.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - New York Times

 

[healthmyths]

HM422 10010505 regarding NF 10009840

Inspectors NEVER found ANY proof WMDs were destroyed.

NF428 10011012 regarding HM422 10010505.

Of course they didn't. Bush cut off the peaceful process of disarmament verification and long term monitoring in order to start a war to verify that Iraq had nothing.

Healthmyths has not responded to the above statement in my post 428. I must assume therefore that Healthmyths cannot figure out why he is complaining that the inspectors did not find 'proof' that the ancient chemicals were destroyed unilaterally by Iraq in the early 1990s since it was Bush 43 in March 2003 that put an end to the UN inspectors ongoing work to find the answers.

WMDs were never found because Iraq never possessed them... AFTER they were moved.

Again...
The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."
Israel Matzav Video Saddam s top military adviser says Iraqi WMD s were moved to Syria

 

[healthmyths]

HM422 10010505 regarding NF 10009840

Inspectors NEVER found ANY proof WMDs were destroyed.

NF428 10011012 regarding HM422 10010505.

Of course they didn't. Bush cut off the peaceful process of disarmament verification and long term monitoring in order to start a war to verify that Iraq had nothing.

Healthmyths has not responded to the above statement in my post 428. I must assume therefore that Healthmyths cannot figure out why he is complaining that the inspectors did not find 'proof' that the ancient chemicals were destroyed unilaterally by Iraq in the early 1990s since it was Bush 43 in March 2003 that put an end to the UN inspectors ongoing work to find the answers.

Thank God Bush did put an end to it because to Saddam's dying day HE WOULD NEVER ADMIT Iraq never had WMDs!
Why would he not admit that? I mean on his death days, he had every chance to laugh at Bush and poke fun at going after WMDs that didn't
exist... But Saddam didn't!

again.. The person that ordered WMD attacks on thousands of Kurds would according to the guy interrogating him...
Proof is in what Saddam told Piro...which was ....Saddam still wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did.
Because, says Piro, "For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that [faking having the weapons] would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," he tells Pelley.

He also intended and had the wherewithal to restart the weapons program. "[Saddam] still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," says Piro. "He wanted to pursue all of WMDs to reconstitute his entire WMD program." This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says.

Interview with FBI agent who interrogated Saddam Archive - AnandTech Forums

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HM 9836588 regarding RW 9832717

Then later in his disgusting career.. Kerry HELPED the enemy even further by calling our troops "terrorists"!!! Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

RW 9836627 regarding HM 9836588, RW 9832717

You also confuse the terms terrorize and terrorist Is this another post where conservatives demonstrate their inability to read?

HM 9841231 regarding RW 9836627, HM 9836588,

Also when someone terrorizes people that person is a "TERRORIST"! definition: a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims. So why would Kerry use the word "terrorizing" then?? He meant to say our troops are terrorists!

I suggested that you are arguing that US combat troops busting into Iraqi homes brandishing their weapons does not terrorize women and children living there. You ran away from my point. You never responded to it.


NF 9958365 regarding HM 9956733, NF 9955063, HM 9953159

You are arguing that US combat troops busting into Iraqi homes brandishing their weapons does not terrorize women and children living there.

You really are establishing a record that you are vehemently opposed to telling the truth. Do you have kids Healthmyths? Even if you don't you must have been around kids at some point in your life. Now imagine that you found yourself and your family in a situation where some foreign government decided to bomb and invade the land where you live. Then imagine that in the aftermath of that bombing, invasion and occupation, that foreign government sends its soldiers in full combat gear into your home. Busting down doors and pushing men around and forcing them at gunpoint to obey their commands. Commands not necessarily spoken in the same language that you speak. Now imagine those kids witnessing their father or brother or uncles being tied up and taken away in the middle of the night...... and now you tell me that those kids and women and elderly are not being terrorized.


By the way here is the first meaning of 'terrorize' in my Word look up function is this: "to intimidate or coerce somebody with violence or the threat of violence" The second meaning there is "to make someone fearful" ...... "to fill somebody with feelings of intense fear over a period of time"


The only one I see calling our troops 'terrorists' is you, Healthmyths. Its when you write, "Kerry HELPED the enemy even further by calling our troops "terrorists!!! " Think about it. Kerry didn't call our troops terrorists. Your inabilities with language is what suggests that some idiot could potentially translate Kerry's statement to mean that.

I won't accuse you of aid and abetting the enemy since I am above that sort of slime and I don't need it for my arguments. And also I don't accept that those type of statements 'telling the truth' have much effect on the sectarian violence that took place in Iraq after Bush did that ridiculous regime change there.

I put more stock into what Military officers such as General Shineski had advised prior to the invasion. Bush did not listen to an expert giving a recommendation that it would take at least twice as many troops more than Bush calculated to maintain civil order in Iraq following a regime change. Many of the troops Bush sent were of a Judeo-Christian belief system who were not prepared to deal with a predominantly Muslim nation with three distinct and competing sects. The power void that regime change would bring was certainly predictable. It is quite ignorant to be convinced that the violence that followed regime change was mostly caused by protest and opposition to the war back home.