saddam and the weapons of mass destruction

[occupied]

But Saddam did not have a nuclear weapons program, and the fear that Saddam would develop nukes and then give the technology to terrorists was the main justification for invading Iraq.

Yes, Saddam did have chemical/biological WMDs, but not nukes. And that's the main issue. There were officials in the Department of Defense and in the White House who knew that the evidence for Saddam's alleged nuke program was very thin, but they saw to it that this fact was suppressed.

So WHY didn't Saddam if HE KNEW WE KNEW certify the destruction and save 100,000 children a year from starvation due to the sanctions?

Google "Hans Blix" and STFU.

 

[mikegriffith1]

No one ever denied He had nerve gas munitions, he gassed the Kurds after all and we found significant stockpiles, it's the Anthrax and the eminent nuclear bombs that scared people into going along with that fool's errand and were shown to be utter bullshit.

The Israelis bombed a nuclear plant in Iraq before they finished building it and that is not bullshit, but an actual fact. The nuclear scientists and technicians were still in Iraq and would have started back up as soon as the sanctions were lifted. This time they would do it in secret and underground. Everybody knew that but you.

Hardly the dire emergency that Bushco hyped to the max requiring the immediate destruction of a country and there were no plans to lift sanctions, do you have any more ridiculous arguments?

"Immediate destruction"??? Use hyperbole much?
Do you keep agreements i.e. you agree to make mortgage, car payments etc right?
The reason you do is under penalty of forfeiture right?
So do you think when Saddam broke the 1991 Cease Fire agreement dozens of times so often that Bill Clinton SIGNED the 1998 Liberation of Iraq Act as Congress approved... all agreements Saddam broke we should have just continued to allow him to starve 100,000 children a year just because he wouldn't CERTIFY his WMDs were destroyed?
I mean all this evidence that WMDs existed... prior manufacturing, WMDs found, broken agreements and 100,000 children starving a year just because Saddam wouldn't Certify... to me that was proof enough he had WMDs!
HE broke agreements and forfeited his life!

100,000 children were starving partly because we had destroyed a lot of the nation's infrastructure in the Gulf War, because we had heavy sanctions on Iraq, and because we were bombing Iraq at will.

Saddam was no worse, and arguably a bit better, than Assad in Syria or Mubarak in Egypt or Qaddafi in Libya.

Our first big mistake was the Gulf War in 1991, which inflamed conservative and ultra-conservative Muslims against us and led Al Qaeda to turn its guns on us. Until we got involved, Bin Laden was prepared to wage a guerrilla war against Saddam in Kuwait. Ultra-conservative Muslims viewed Saddam as a godless, secular ruler, and they were going to wage a long-term struggle to expel Iraq from Kuwait. There was no need for us to get involved. This is not to mention the fact that Bush Sr. either blunderingly green-lighted or baited Saddam into invading Kuwait in the first place.

 

[occupied]

No one ever denied He had nerve gas munitions, he gassed the Kurds after all and we found significant stockpiles, it's the Anthrax and the eminent nuclear bombs that scared people into going along with that fool's errand and were shown to be utter bullshit.

The Israelis bombed a nuclear plant in Iraq before they finished building it and that is not bullshit, but an actual fact. The nuclear scientists and technicians were still in Iraq and would have started back up as soon as the sanctions were lifted. This time they would do it in secret and underground. Everybody knew that but you.

Hardly the dire emergency that Bushco hyped to the max requiring the immediate destruction of a country and there were no plans to lift sanctions, do you have any more ridiculous arguments?

"Immediate destruction"??? Use hyperbole much?
Do you keep agreements i.e. you agree to make mortgage, car payments etc right?
The reason you do is under penalty of forfeiture right?
So do you think when Saddam broke the 1991 Cease Fire agreement dozens of times so often that Bill Clinton SIGNED the 1998 Liberation of Iraq Act as Congress approved... all agreements Saddam broke we should have just continued to allow him to starve 100,000 children a year just because he wouldn't CERTIFY his WMDs were destroyed?
I mean all this evidence that WMDs existed... prior manufacturing, WMDs found, broken agreements and 100,000 children starving a year just because Saddam wouldn't Certify... to me that was proof enough he had WMDs!
HE broke agreements and forfeited his life!

100,000 children were starving partly because we had destroyed a lot of the nation's infrastructure in the Gulf War, because we had heavy sanctions on Iraq, and because we were bombing Iraq at will.

Saddam was no worse, and arguably a bit better, than Assad in Syria or Mubarak in Egypt or Qaddafi in Libya.

Our first big mistake was the Gulf War in 1991, which inflamed conservative and ultra-conservative Muslims against us and led Al Qaeda to turn its guns on us. Until we got involved, Bin Laden was prepared to wage a guerrilla war against Saddam in Kuwait. Ultra-conservative Muslims viewed Saddam as a godless, secular ruler, and they were going to wage a long-term struggle to expel Iraq from Kuwait. There was no need for us to get involved. This is not to mention the fact that Bush Sr. either blunderingly green-lighted or baited Saddam into invading Kuwait in the first place.

The threads keep going back in time. We did so many terrible things in the region since WWII that it is no wonder many think we're the devil. If there is one thing they are good at it's holding grudges and we have supplied the region with enough anger and loss to fuel another thousand years of vengeance. The shit we do to keep fuel in our cars may be our downfall.

 

[healthmyths]

But Saddam did not have a nuclear weapons program, and the fear that Saddam would develop nukes and then give the technology to terrorists was the main justification for invading Iraq.

Yes, Saddam did have chemical/biological WMDs, but not nukes. And that's the main issue. There were officials in the Department of Defense and in the White House who knew that the evidence for Saddam's alleged nuke program was very thin, but they saw to it that this fact was suppressed.

So WHY didn't Saddam if HE KNEW WE KNEW certify the destruction and save 100,000 children a year from starvation due to the sanctions?

Google "Hans Blix" and STFU.

So who would you believe:
Hans Blix who was "approved" by Iraq to go to specific areas and ...surprise surprise... NO WMDs!
OR
have 2,188,800 children dead from starvation because
In five years 576,000 children starved BECAUSE SADDAM refused to comply with the UN sanctions.
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 - NYTimes.com

 

[washamericom]

The rule of nature and human behavior abhors vacuums, unfortunately the resolve of this administration lacked conviction to finish the mission. Afghanistan is currently stumbling down the same path. The central problem, theory and reality are polar opposites, separated by historical truths and examples that were neglected as a mater of convenience, or should we say politics. Now the administration refuses to admit terrorism exists, turns a blind eye toward the pending danger, is reluctant to admit absolute failure in foreign policy, and remains steadfast in the belief that if we don't act and make small sacrifices we will be loved and admired by all. One has to admit the Nobel Peace prize for the pure naive rookie proved to be a bust.

that's a wonderful example of "decree by popular acclaim" which goes along with the cult of personality. well he has a nobel prize doesn't he.
no, i think the libdems are waking up to being dead wrong about this too.

just willing something doesn't wish it true. i was proud of president bush and prime minister blair for the way they led us out of the darkness after 911. i feel just as strongly about it today. but that's another subject.

 

[washamericom]

Cut the crap, we all know the real rationale for starting the Iraq war and occupation and it had nothing to do with any of that.

Translation: I am going to believe what I want to believe, and no fact or logic is going to change that.

I appreciate your honesty.

You dumb-asses still trying to justify the Iraq invasion are even worse than the dummies still trying to polish Nixon's presidency. History has made it's judgement, Bushco™ lied us into invading a country that was no threat to us and you poor deluded conservatives are not even upset about it.

what R U a trademark lawyer ? nobody cares you know..you are dead wrong about saddam not being a threat. he still is even dead...
incidentally, saddam the bathest was going to make a play for syria. syria has chemweps... chemweps have a relatively short shelf life.

How Saddam s Former Soldiers Are Fueling the Rise of ISIS The Rise of ISIS FRONTLINE PBS

Saddam s Ex-Officer We ve Played Key Role In Helping Militants Parallels NPR

 

[washamericom]

Cut the crap, we all know the real rationale for starting the Iraq war and occupation and it had nothing to do with any of that.

Translation: I am going to believe what I want to believe, and no fact or logic is going to change that.

I appreciate your honesty.

You dumb-asses still trying to justify the Iraq invasion are even worse than the dummies still trying to polish Nixon's presidency. History has made it's judgement, Bushco™ lied us into invading a country that was no threat to us and you poor deluded conservatives are not even upset about it.

what R U a trademark lawyer ? nobody cares you know..you are dead wrong about saddam not being a threat. he still is even dead...
incidentally, saddam the bathest was going to make a play for syria. syria has chemweps... chemweps have a relatively short shelf life.

How Saddam s Former Soldiers Are Fueling the Rise of ISIS The Rise of ISIS FRONTLINE PBS

Saddam s Ex-Officer We ve Played Key Role In Helping Militants Parallels NPR

read harmony report: Google

 

[Theowl32]

No one ever denied He had nerve gas munitions, he gassed the Kurds after all and we found significant stockpiles, it's the Anthrax and the eminent nuclear bombs that scared people into going along with that fool's errand and were shown to be utter bullshit.

No one ever denied he had wmds? Holy shit!

 

[washamericom]

No one ever denied He had nerve gas munitions, he gassed the Kurds after all and we found significant stockpiles, it's the Anthrax and the eminent nuclear bombs that scared people into going along with that fool's errand and were shown to be utter bullshit.

The Israelis bombed a nuclear plant in Iraq before they finished building it and that is not bullshit, but an actual fact. The nuclear scientists and technicians were still in Iraq and would have started back up as soon as the sanctions were lifted. This time they would do it in secret and underground. Everybody knew that but you.

Hardly the dire emergency that Bushco hyped to the max requiring the immediate destruction of a country and there were no plans to lift sanctions, do you have any more ridiculous arguments?

"Immediate destruction"??? Use hyperbole much?
Do you keep agreements i.e. you agree to make mortgage, car payments etc right?
The reason you do is under penalty of forfeiture right?
So do you think when Saddam broke the 1991 Cease Fire agreement dozens of times so often that Bill Clinton SIGNED the 1998 Liberation of Iraq Act as Congress approved... all agreements Saddam broke we should have just continued to allow him to starve 100,000 children a year just because he wouldn't CERTIFY his WMDs were destroyed?
I mean all this evidence that WMDs existed... prior manufacturing, WMDs found, broken agreements and 100,000 children starving a year just because Saddam wouldn't Certify... to me that was proof enough he had WMDs!
HE broke agreements and forfeited his life!

It's all bullshit, they only started talking about liberation from Saddam's tyranny afterwards when they just were not finding anything and while I am on the subject of afterward, need I bring up "Brownie", Abu Gharib and the Blackwater massacre? Time after time they did shit that guaranteed we would never pacify Iraq. I still wonder if some of it was deliberate to prolong the war and maximize profits.

i like to bring Abu Ghraib and how the press and the democrats use it as a political weapon against their own country, made me sick.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Every intelligence agency in the civilized world said he had WMD's, including numerous democrats including both Clintons. Turns out, he did have WMD's that he failed to disclose.

 

[BlindBoo]

No one ever denied he had wmds? Holy shit!

The lies from the Bush Administration was he had reconstituted his former WMD programs from the 1980's when he was receiving support from the US and our allies. So of course he had some during the Iran war.

 

[washamericom]

Every intelligence agency in the civilized world said he had WMD's, including numerous democrats including both Clintons. Turns out, he did have WMD's that he failed to disclose.

no offense to the u n but as in iran they pull ujp to the inspection site, the guards say you can't come in, move along nothing to see here...
u n says "ok, we'll go to the next one" there's your search. how old are the chemweps in syria. do they match up ? they are inert by now. he intended to rekindle his nukes program. he was recruiting suicide bombers for America. he gave orders to hunt down and kill American's especially in somalia.. and on and on.

to say that there were no wmds is childish, to think he couldn't shell game those very weapons. it's like saying our excellent military captured saddam on the first day. they caught him, i'll bet you were all glad that day. he had a trial...but until we found him, it was the same shell game. same for bin laden.

 

[washamericom]

[Qhttps://Google"BlindBoo, post: 10780609, member: 25197"]

No one ever denied he had wmds? Holy shit!

The lies from the Bush Administration was he had reconstituted his former WMD programs from the 1980's when he was receiving support from the US and our allies. So of course he had some during the Iran war.[/QUOTE]
sorry missy, i feel the liberals believe that for political expediency and convenience.

obama's always transparent though right ? that could be the most inept campaign promise in history so far.

you also know they found 550 tons metric of yellowcake, which for some reason went to canada... toro ?

but that was seven years ago. That yellowcake stockpile pre-dated 1991, and had been under the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency "safeguard" from then until 2003.

Read more: Articles The 550 Tons of Yellowcake
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook fairly soon after 911.


Google

snopes and factcheck... ... give me a break... what twerpy extensions of the chicago machine.

in the mean time why don't you democrats keep being historically kind to saddam... and those still living whom are just like him.

then we can:

i know, dan rather... i tried to pick someone the libs might believe.:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/world/americas/26venez.html?_r=0

 

[healthmyths]

No one ever denied He had nerve gas munitions, he gassed the Kurds after all and we found significant stockpiles, it's the Anthrax and the eminent nuclear bombs that scared people into going along with that fool's errand and were shown to be utter bullshit.

The Israelis bombed a nuclear plant in Iraq before they finished building it and that is not bullshit, but an actual fact. The nuclear scientists and technicians were still in Iraq and would have started back up as soon as the sanctions were lifted. This time they would do it in secret and underground. Everybody knew that but you.

Hardly the dire emergency that Bushco hyped to the max requiring the immediate destruction of a country and there were no plans to lift sanctions, do you have any more ridiculous arguments?

"Immediate destruction"??? Use hyperbole much?
Do you keep agreements i.e. you agree to make mortgage, car payments etc right?
The reason you do is under penalty of forfeiture right?
So do you think when Saddam broke the 1991 Cease Fire agreement dozens of times so often that Bill Clinton SIGNED the 1998 Liberation of Iraq Act as Congress approved... all agreements Saddam broke we should have just continued to allow him to starve 100,000 children a year just because he wouldn't CERTIFY his WMDs were destroyed?
I mean all this evidence that WMDs existed... prior manufacturing, WMDs found, broken agreements and 100,000 children starving a year just because Saddam wouldn't Certify... to me that was proof enough he had WMDs!
HE broke agreements and forfeited his life!

It's all bullshit, they only started talking about liberation from Saddam's tyranny afterwards when they just were not finding anything and while I am on the subject of afterward, need I bring up "Brownie", Abu Gharib and the Blackwater massacre? Time after time they did shit that guaranteed we would never pacify Iraq. I still wonder if some of it was deliberate to prolong the war and maximize profits.

i like to bring Abu Ghraib and how the press and the democrats use it as a political weapon against their own country, made me sick.

Absolutely right!
The SAME IDIOTS that claim Ab Gharib that involved just 11 National Guard troops out of millions of US Military has added to the terrorists
propaganda value...ALSO don't see then where traitorous statements like these EVEN though the Harvard Study shows a direct affect:

The Harvard Study asked: THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The resounding answer WAS YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent following what the researchers call "high-mention weeks," like the two just before the November 2006 election.
And these statements which idiots like YOU most likely agreed with did everything in the world to encourage recruit and reward the terrorists to continue.

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
NOTE: You are not that naive to think the terrorists didn't find Kerry calling OUR TROOPS terrorists absolutely EMBOLDENING???

Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ....
to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , JanS. 23. 2003

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
This idiot paints ALL one million military the same as what 11 National guards troops did!

then 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 "

 

[BlindBoo]

m

i feel the liberals believe that for political expediency and convenience

You just let your "feelings" rule you huh?

But as far as supporting and supplying Iraq in the 80's. Well that is just a fact of history. You should study it sometime.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Israelis bombed a nuclear plant in Iraq before they finished building it and that is not bullshit, but an actual fact. The nuclear scientists and technicians were still in Iraq and would have started back up as soon as the sanctions were lifted. This time they would do it in secret and underground. Everybody knew that but you.

Hardly the dire emergency that Bushco hyped to the max requiring the immediate destruction of a country and there were no plans to lift sanctions, do you have any more ridiculous arguments?

"Immediate destruction"??? Use hyperbole much?
Do you keep agreements i.e. you agree to make mortgage, car payments etc right?
The reason you do is under penalty of forfeiture right?
So do you think when Saddam broke the 1991 Cease Fire agreement dozens of times so often that Bill Clinton SIGNED the 1998 Liberation of Iraq Act as Congress approved... all agreements Saddam broke we should have just continued to allow him to starve 100,000 children a year just because he wouldn't CERTIFY his WMDs were destroyed?
I mean all this evidence that WMDs existed... prior manufacturing, WMDs found, broken agreements and 100,000 children starving a year just because Saddam wouldn't Certify... to me that was proof enough he had WMDs!
HE broke agreements and forfeited his life!

It's all bullshit, they only started talking about liberation from Saddam's tyranny afterwards when they just were not finding anything and while I am on the subject of afterward, need I bring up "Brownie", Abu Gharib and the Blackwater massacre? Time after time they did shit that guaranteed we would never pacify Iraq. I still wonder if some of it was deliberate to prolong the war and maximize profits.

i like to bring Abu Ghraib and how the press and the democrats use it as a political weapon against their own country, made me sick.

Absolutely right!
The SAME IDIOTS that claim Ab Gharib that involved just 11 National Guard troops out of millions of US Military has added to the terrorists
propaganda value...ALSO don't see then where traitorous statements like these EVEN though the Harvard Study shows a direct affect:

The Harvard Study asked: THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The resounding answer WAS YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent following what the researchers call "high-mention weeks," like the two just before the November 2006 election.
And these statements which idiots like YOU most likely agreed with did everything in the world to encourage recruit and reward the terrorists to continue.

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
NOTE: You are not that naive to think the terrorists didn't find Kerry calling OUR TROOPS terrorists absolutely EMBOLDENING???

Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ....
to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , JanS. 23. 2003

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
This idiot paints ALL one million military the same as what 11 National guards troops did!

then 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 "

Terrorists around the world appreciate your out of context quotes and lies. How many attacks do you think you've inspired?

 

[washamericom]

m

i feel the liberals believe that for political expediency and convenience

You just let your "feelings" rule you huh?

But as far as supporting and supplying Iraq in the 80's. Well that is just a fact of history. You should study it sometime.

i do here, not everywhere else.

you mean when reagan was president ?

 

[washamericom]

Hardly the dire emergency that Bushco hyped to the max requiring the immediate destruction of a country and there were no plans to lift sanctions, do you have any more ridiculous arguments?

"Immediate destruction"??? Use hyperbole much?
Do you keep agreements i.e. you agree to make mortgage, car payments etc right?
The reason you do is under penalty of forfeiture right?
So do you think when Saddam broke the 1991 Cease Fire agreement dozens of times so often that Bill Clinton SIGNED the 1998 Liberation of Iraq Act as Congress approved... all agreements Saddam broke we should have just continued to allow him to starve 100,000 children a year just because he wouldn't CERTIFY his WMDs were destroyed?
I mean all this evidence that WMDs existed... prior manufacturing, WMDs found, broken agreements and 100,000 children starving a year just because Saddam wouldn't Certify... to me that was proof enough he had WMDs!
HE broke agreements and forfeited his life!

It's all bullshit, they only started talking about liberation from Saddam's tyranny afterwards when they just were not finding anything and while I am on the subject of afterward, need I bring up "Brownie", Abu Gharib and the Blackwater massacre? Time after time they did shit that guaranteed we would never pacify Iraq. I still wonder if some of it was deliberate to prolong the war and maximize profits.

i like to bring Abu Ghraib and how the press and the democrats use it as a political weapon against their own country, made me sick.

Absolutely right!
The SAME IDIOTS that claim Ab Gharib that involved just 11 National Guard troops out of millions of US Military has added to the terrorists
propaganda value...ALSO don't see then where traitorous statements like these EVEN though the Harvard Study shows a direct affect:

The Harvard Study asked: THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The resounding answer WAS YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent following what the researchers call "high-mention weeks," like the two just before the November 2006 election.
And these statements which idiots like YOU most likely agreed with did everything in the world to encourage recruit and reward the terrorists to continue.

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
NOTE: You are not that naive to think the terrorists didn't find Kerry calling OUR TROOPS terrorists absolutely EMBOLDENING???

Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ....
to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , JanS. 23. 2003

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
This idiot paints ALL one million military the same as what 11 National guards troops did!

then 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 "

Terrorists around the world appreciate your out of context quotes and lies. How many attacks do you think you've inspired?

How many attacks do you think you've inspired?

that may be a little bit over the top sweet pea. it's just a talk forum/messageboard

 

[BlindBoo]

that may be a little bit over the top sweet pea.

Or not. Health has taken those quotes out of context and methodically and continuously post them here. He is the one that claims the terrorist do the exact same thing.

 

[washamericom]

that may be a little bit over the top sweet pea.

Or not. Health has taken those quotes out of context and methodically and continuously post them here. He is the one that claims the terrorist do the exact same thing.

they become terrorist after reading usmess ?

what about ::