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

[mudwhistle]

N

Yeap, liberals are now all of a sudden claiming they knew he had WMDs.

They claim the inspectors had "secured" all of them.

Interesting how ISIS all of a sudden has those "secured" weapons.

Liberals are such miserable fucking liars, worthy of zero respect.

So if ISIS has them, that means Bush failed! lol, you can't win, shut up.

Yeah, the chemical weapons saddam had and were hidden and not secured are now in the hands of ISIS.

I love how you claimed the glorious UN secured them, how obama (btw knew about this intelligence that the chemical weapons were used as the article points out and the real reason why obama never called for an investigation) withdrew and destabilized the region and made all of our gains worth nothing.

Now the world is crumbling, and it is all on obama and the morons like you he placates.

You are a fucking walking contradiction.

Bush destabilized the region. Saddam certainly wasn't giving his leftover chemical weapons to terrorists who wanted to take over his country.

Nope, he was planning on selling small tactical nukes to terrorists, as well as building a program to scare the Iranians.

 

[TooTall]

4,000+ young American lives, tens of thousands of lost limbs and minds, thousands of destroyed families over one trillion dollars that we didn't have, and an even more destabilized Middle East.

For that?

No thanks.

1.2 million children ALIVE today because they weren't starved by Saddam's refusal to admit he DIDN"T have WMDs!
And now we know he DID!
Or how about these Iraqi's
"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

You do realize that sending Americans to die by the thousands so some people in some other country can 'feel better' is not a just cause...

...a just cause for American military action is when there is a dire threat to our vital interests.

We had no vital interests in Iraq, therefore the invasion cannot be justified.

Tell that to Hillary Clinton and John Kerry who voted in the US Senate to authorize military action in Iraq.

Do you I think I care if a Democrat was wrong? All I care about is the fact that I was right,

as was our President,

who incidentally is not Hillary Clinton or John Kerry.

The problem is you are not right. You just think you are.

 

[g5000]

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

Do you have some sort of tickler file which prompts you to start new topics every couple of months to rehash old subjects, or something?

 

[healthmyths]

and they were right!!!

There are important things to consider about this:

1) There was no intelligence gatherrd during the Bush administration that the weapons existed. The weapons inspections by the UN reflected this.
2) Released documents show that Bush intentionally mislead the American public about his intention to go to war.
3) Saddam did not use any of these weapons at the time.

Sure we found weapons, but that doesn't change the fact that the war was fraudulent.

So tell me why then Saddam "knowing" that the USA was wrong about Iraq having WMDs, would allow
In five years 576,000 children starved ........BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - New York Times

Why would any leader allow his people to starve rather then tell the truth i.e. certify that Iraq's WMDs were destroyed?
Idiots say he did so because HE didn't think the USA would have the balls to Liberate Iraq BUT he did fear Iran would if Saddam said he'd
destroyed WMDs invade Iraq.
In either event why would we let any leader of any country with the dozens of human rights, violations, the KNOWN use of WMDs on his own people, the destruction of Mesopotamia and displacement of 500,000 of his people continue to starve 100,000 children a year?
You and other Saddam lovers keep glossing over the tremendous compassion the USA side benefit of keeping 1.2 million children from starving because Saddam wouldn't agree to certify the destruction of WMDs.

Does any compassionate real person EVER believe any leader would let 100,000+ a year children starve???

Hunger half way around the world is not a vital interest to the US. If it were, we'd have been in every war in Africa for decades.

Is that what you want?

NO... but your single minded very cliched mentality doesn't look at the benefits that came from the Liberation of Iraq which included saving 1.2 million children from starvation.
Those African nations were never a threat to the USA. Saddam was. He financed suicide bombers. He attacked neighboring countries. He
violated UN sanctions thus purposely letting 576,000 children starve and YOU would not lift a finger?
So much for the "compassionate" liberal.

1.2 million children are alive as a side benefit from Liberation of Iraq... Also please tell these people the Liberation of Iraq was wrong!

3) "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

 

[bripat9643]

Not exactly a mushroom cloud is it? We knew about Saddam's aging and mostly un-usable stockpile of chemicals, no one in the world could have made the case to invade over that alone. Bushco said he had a functional nuclear program and weaponized biologicals along with the missiles to deliver it to Europe. That's the lie that justified our invasion.

What a pile of horseshit. Nobody thought Saddam had the bomb, moron. Chemical weapons are exactly what everyone meant when they used the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction. Your post is a complete lie.

You must thing no one in this forum was alive during the Iraq War.

You are truly one stupid jackass.

 

[mudwhistle]

No, it was not about chemical weapons that put America behind the President, it was about a NUCLEAR WMD threat that was hyped by the administration....it was about yellowcake and
Valerie Plame's husband exposing the LIE THE ADMINISTRATION WAS SAYING ON IT.... it was about waking up to a Mushroom cloud...

WE KNEW saddam had chemical weapons, and chemical weapons that were deteriorating...

Chemical weapons could not reach us here in the USA, they were of no threat to the USA that required us to start a war against a sovereign nation, and put our men out there to die for....

STOP rewriting history to make yourselves 'feel' better....now that all our guys are DEAD and MAIMED.

So the far left press sold the idea of Nukes? Even though Powell cited chemical weapons and mobile chemical labs?

The press quoted what President Bush, and vice pres Cheney and condi rice, and rumsfeld and wolfowitz said..... if what the president and the administration implied about Nukes was not important, then why did the administration push the idea?

isn't it funny how they forget that judy miller did baby bush's bidding and lied in her NY Times articles?

BASED ON THE LIES OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. but why should they let facts get in their way

So the far left NYTimes prints an article that was wrong! Go figure that one.

However one far left blog site does not the media make.

And as always the far left shows that the history of Iraq began in 2003 to them.

No, they are claiming they always knew he had chemical weapons. That is what they are claiming, like the miserable fucking liars they are.

Nope, he didn't have them. They were all destroyed in 91'.

True story.

 

[healthmyths]

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

Do you have some sort of tickler file which prompts you to start new topics every couple of months to rehash old subjects, or something?

No the New York Times does... see above....

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wrong. Chemical weapons were the primary concern.

 

[bodecea]

N

Yeap, liberals are now all of a sudden claiming they knew he had WMDs.

They claim the inspectors had "secured" all of them.

Interesting how ISIS all of a sudden has those "secured" weapons.

Liberals are such miserable fucking liars, worthy of zero respect.

So if ISIS has them, that means Bush failed! lol, you can't win, shut up.

Yeah, the chemical weapons saddam had and were hidden and not secured are now in the hands of ISIS.

I love how you claimed the glorious UN secured them, how obama (btw knew about this intelligence that the chemical weapons were used as the article points out and the real reason why obama never called for an investigation) withdrew and destabilized the region and made all of our gains worth nothing.

Now the world is crumbling, and it is all on obama and the morons like you he placates.

You are a fucking walking contradiction.

Bush destabilized the region. Saddam certainly wasn't giving his leftover chemical weapons to terrorists who wanted to take over his country.

Nope, he was planning on selling small tactical nukes to terrorists, as well as building a program to scare the Iranians.

Sure he was.

 

[TooTall]

Everybody on the face of the planet already know that Saddam had chemical weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

Everybody on the face of the planet already knew that Saddam had biological weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

What tipped the scales in favor of invasion was the third leg of the weapons triad - nuclear weapons.

Supposed yellow-cake uranium shipments from South Africa and highly advanced research and materials-processing facilities and knowledge-base.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam's chemical weapons away from him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam biological weapons away form him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

People went to war to stop Saddam from developing and deploying nuclear weapons - a supposed new state of affairs.

Doesn't matter how the arguments for the casus belli were formalized, at the UN, or, more loosely, amongst the American People.

What DOES matter is the focus of the arguments leading up to the formalizing of the casus belli.

And that focus was nuclear weaponry - the NEW element in the weapons triad that could be made to serve as the flash-point for an alarm, sufficient to go to war over.

You know that just as well as I do, whether you choose to concede the point here or not.

Kondor, stop saying EVERYONE knew he had chemical weapons. You are double talking out of your ass right now.

You say chemical weapons are WMDs, and claim the left always knew he had those when the war started?

WRONG!!!!

For 15 years they claimed NOTHING was found. They did not limit it to NO NUCLEAR weapons. Are you really going to stick with that claim?

Chemical weapons ARE WMDS!

AND .... they only starting claiming that Sadaams Iraq had no WMDs AFTER it became fashionable as a means to attack George W.

Prior to that the Dems were right in line claimin Hussein had WMDs ... uh that's Sadam Hussein , not .. Barrack Hussein , he just has tools

Generally speaking, the Democrats were just as full of shit about Saddam, WMD's, etc., as the Republicans.

To the devil with partisan politics in this regard - what signifies is a false casus belli (nuclear weapons focus), and the price we paid as a result.

4000 of our kids are lying the ground because we got it wrong - or because we were lied to - take your pick - both perspectives may have some merit.

Lied to, bad intel OR he managed to hide them or destroy most of them b4 we got there ... he had plenty of warning.

But Nukes were never really a major part of the picture - it's just you tools trying to rewrite History again. It's a little more difficult when its Modern History isn't it ?

Excuse me?

Fool?

Rewriting history?

What the hell are you talking about?

Did the world not already know for years before the 2003 Iraq War, that Iraq had chemical weapons, and had not yet seen fit to go to war over those?

Did the world not already know for years before the 2003 Iraq War, that Iraq had biological weapons, and had not yet seen fit to go to war over those?

Nuclear weapons were the new factor in the calculation to go to war.

Nothing 'revisionist' about that.

It's not like they never planned on nukes.

Operation Opera (Hebrew: אופרה‎), also known as Operation Babylon, was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June 1981, which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction 17 kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad.

 

[Old Rocks]

Saddam did not have enough chemical or biological weopons to be a threat to anyone. The whole damned debacle was based on a lie. And you continue that lie.

 

[BlindBoo]

Never?

More lies. Of course during the period when Ronnie Raygun supported Saddam and removed Iraq from the List of Countries that support Terrorist, US companies and companies from our allies were able to sell Saddam all kinds of Duel use goodies including chemicals, biological agents and equipment used for Nuclear weapons. So not only did he have them and used them on Iran and the Iraqi Kurds while Raygun supported him but also Raygun never condemned his use of such weapons.

Of course all that ended after the first war. Nothing produce after that first war has ever been found. No new production facilities, no massive stockpiles, nothing. That was the claim by the Bush Administration in 2003 and they were completely wrong. It was an unnecessary war that broke up the Iraqi state and created the civil war they are embroiled in right now.

 

[mudwhistle]

Mustard gas doesnt produce mushroom clouds

What's the difference between burns from mustard gas and a nuke blast? Mustard gas can cause burns for decades.

 

[mudwhistle]

Saddam did not have enough chemical or biological weopons to be a threat to anyone. The whole damned debacle was based on a lie. And you continue that lie.

5000 active warheads is enough to wipe out a village or villages.

 

[mudwhistle]

Never?

More lies. Of course during the period when Ronnie Raygun supported Saddam and removed Iraq from the List of Countries that support Terrorist, US companies and companies from our allies were able to sell Saddam all kinds of Duel use goodies including chemicals, biological agents and equipment used for Nuclear weapons. So not only did he have them and used them on Iran and the Iraqi Kurds while Raygun supported him but also Raygun never condemned his use of such weapons.

Of course all that ended after the first war. Nothing produce after that first war has ever been found. No new production facilities, no massive stockpiles, nothing. That was the claim by the Bush Administration in 2003 and they were completely wrong. It was an unnecessary war that broke up the Iraqi state and created the civil war they are embroiled in right now.

Then why did he still have them? 5000 warheads is what I would call a stockpile. How many more weren't found? Iraq is pretty big. Kind of hard to use a metal detector and cover the whole country.

 

[mudwhistle]

and they were right!!!

There are important things to consider about this:

1) There was no intelligence gatherrd during the Bush administration that the weapons existed. The weapons inspections by the UN reflected this.
2) Released documents show that Bush intentionally mislead the American public about his intention to go to war.
3) Saddam did not use any of these weapons at the time.

Sure we found weapons, but that doesn't change the fact that the war was fraudulent.

So tell me why then Saddam "knowing" that the USA was wrong about Iraq having WMDs, would allow
In five years 576,000 children starved ........BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - New York Times

Why would any leader allow his people to starve rather then tell the truth i.e. certify that Iraq's WMDs were destroyed?
Idiots say he did so because HE didn't think the USA would have the balls to Liberate Iraq BUT he did fear Iran would if Saddam said he'd
destroyed WMDs invade Iraq.
In either event why would we let any leader of any country with the dozens of human rights, violations, the KNOWN use of WMDs on his own people, the destruction of Mesopotamia and displacement of 500,000 of his people continue to starve 100,000 children a year?
You and other Saddam lovers keep glossing over the tremendous compassion the USA side benefit of keeping 1.2 million children from starving because Saddam wouldn't agree to certify the destruction of WMDs.

Does any compassionate real person EVER believe any leader would let 100,000+ a year children starve???

Hunger half way around the world is not a vital interest to the US. If it were, we'd have been in every war in Africa for decades.

Is that what you want?

Ebola is. Why are we there bringing it here if it's none of our business?

 

[BlindBoo]

4,000+ young American lives, tens of thousands of lost limbs and minds, thousands of destroyed families over one trillion dollars that we didn't have, and an even more destabilized Middle East.

For that?

No thanks.

1.2 million children ALIVE today because they weren't starved by Saddam's refusal to admit he DIDN"T have WMDs!
And now we know he DID!
Or how about these Iraqi's
"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

You do realize that sending Americans to die by the thousands so some people in some other country can 'feel better' is not a just cause...

...a just cause for American military action is when there is a dire threat to our vital interests.

We had no vital interests in Iraq, therefore the invasion cannot be justified.

You have not right talking about our soldiers death's. After Obama successfully ends the iraq war, and then lets iraq be over run by terrorists. So all those soldiers died in vain. You have no credibility. Anyway Obama sends 3000 soldiers to fight Ebola, which they are not trained to do. How many will die?

You can believe that bullshit rightwing propaganda if you want, but it won't make it true.

Did Obama not successfully end the iraq war?

No, he oversaw the Bush agreement to withdraw US Troops. Like Vietnam, the Iraqis continued the war after we left.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

All those liberals had the wool pulled over their eyes by W. They never had the intel the President did. They were forced to give the president authorization for war. Misled and duped.... Ignorant fools. Lol

 

[jillian]

Lied to, bad intel OR he managed to hide them or destroy most of them b4 we got there ... he had plenty of warning.

But Nukes were never really a major part of the picture - it's just you tools trying to rewrite History again. It's a little more difficult when its Modern History isn't it ?

That's a lie Greenbean....it WAS about WMD'S, in the form of waking up to the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud....NUKES

it WAS about yellowcake....for NUKES

it WAS about NUKES that could hit us in 45 minutes...

It is you that has conveniently forgotten what we were being told by the administration at the time....

Look everyone, liberals are now trying to claim chemical weapons were not part of the WMDs.

They also deny that saddam was putting that information out on purpose about nukes, and it was confirmed by defectors, including his two son in laws.

They clearly deny that the country simply enforced the policy of the country that had been signed by Clinton. The Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs.

They clearly will not allow themselves to see that the WAR ON TERROR was always going to be about more than getting al qaeda or bin laden.

They are shifting like the sands of Egypt right before our eyes.

No, it was not about chemical weapons that put America behind the President, it was about a NUCLEAR WMD threat that was hyped by the administration....it was about yellowcake and
Valerie Plame's husband exposing the LIE THE ADMINISTRATION WAS SAYING ON IT.... it was about waking up to a Mushroom cloud...

WE KNEW saddam had chemical weapons, and chemical weapons that were deteriorating...

Chemical weapons could not reach us here in the USA, they were of no threat to the USA that required us to start a war against a sovereign nation, and put our men out there to die for....

STOP rewriting history to make yourselves 'feel' better....now that all our guys are DEAD and MAIMED.

You are on ignore you miserable, double talking lying piece of shit.

You really don't like the Truth, do you?

truth is anathema to rightwingnuts

 

[Old Rocks]

and they were right!!!

There are important things to consider about this:

1) There was no intelligence gatherrd during the Bush administration that the weapons existed. The weapons inspections by the UN reflected this.
2) Released documents show that Bush intentionally mislead the American public about his intention to go to war.
3) Saddam did not use any of these weapons at the time.

Sure we found weapons, but that doesn't change the fact that the war was fraudulent.

So tell me why then Saddam "knowing" that the USA was wrong about Iraq having WMDs, would allow
In five years 576,000 children starved ........BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - New York Times

Why would any leader allow his people to starve rather then tell the truth i.e. certify that Iraq's WMDs were destroyed?
Idiots say he did so because HE didn't think the USA would have the balls to Liberate Iraq BUT he did fear Iran would if Saddam said he'd
destroyed WMDs invade Iraq.
In either event why would we let any leader of any country with the dozens of human rights, violations, the KNOWN use of WMDs on his own people, the destruction of Mesopotamia and displacement of 500,000 of his people continue to starve 100,000 children a year?
You and other Saddam lovers keep glossing over the tremendous compassion the USA side benefit of keeping 1.2 million children from starving because Saddam wouldn't agree to certify the destruction of WMDs.

Does any compassionate real person EVER believe any leader would let 100,000+ a year children starve???

Hunger half way around the world is not a vital interest to the US. If it were, we'd have been in every war in Africa for decades.

Is that what you want?

Ebola is. Why are we there bringing it here if it's none of our business?

Are you so fucking stupid you cannot differentiate between hunger and a communicable disease? I guess you are, at that.