Saddam's WMDs Went To Syria, Then Lebanon....

[Seawytch]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

It works for Fox viewers...

 

[Faun]

All anybody needs to know is that when the 3rd ID went over the berm from Kuwait, they wore full ABC protection gear in that heat...nobody does that if they don't believe they'd need to....once again the left proves they don't know much of anything about anything...sneering turds.

Yeah ... sure they did ...

 

[Faun]

OMG it never ends.

I think the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus were driving the trucks...right?

According to the nutters, Duhbya invaded the wrong country!

 

[TooTall]

OMG it never ends.

I think the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus were driving the trucks...right?

You surprised me this time. I thought you would say "WHAT TRUCKS?"

 

[I.P.Freely]

 

[kiwiman127]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

Well, who's OP is this anyways?
Oh, it's Bull's OP.

 

[NYcarbineer]

OMG it never ends.

I think the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus were driving the trucks...right?

I think the WMD's were taken to Syria on a fleet of short buses borrowed from the Limbaugh University for Advanced Conservative Studies.

 

[I.P.Freely]

From Bull on the road

 

[healthmyths]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

You know YOU MAY BE right! Maybe there weren't 576,000 children starved! YOU may be right!
BUT idiots like you keep forgetting... YOU idiots have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight! Idiot!
Do you KNOW how 90% of Americans felt after the 9/11 attack and the anthrax attacks ? You obviously were some where else on the planet but me and 90% of Americans were very very frightened even to open an envelope! Idiot!
So Yes maybe with the luxury of 10 years hindsight there May not have been 576,000 starved children!
BUT YOU idiots that ignored the fact Saddam was a dictator that VIOLATED and Broke the 1991 CEASE FIRE which as it literally means the 1991 Desert Storm had CEASED FIRE meant the LIBERATION of Iraq as Bill Clinton and other Democrats voted for in 1998 had to take place!

YES with the luxury of hindsight... there may not have been 576,000 starving children! Big woo! How many more would have starved if the sanctions hadn't been halted because SAddam was dead?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

You know YOU MAY BE right! Maybe there weren't 576,000 children starved! YOU may be right!
BUT idiots like you keep forgetting... YOU idiots have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight! Idiot!
Do you KNOW how 90% of Americans felt after the 9/11 attack and the anthrax attacks ? You obviously were some where else on the planet but me and 90% of Americans were very very frightened even to open an envelope! Idiot!
So Yes maybe with the luxury of 10 years hindsight there May not have been 576,000 starved children!
BUT YOU idiots that ignored the fact Saddam was a dictator that VIOLATED and Broke the 1991 CEASE FIRE which as it literally means the 1991 Desert Storm had CEASED FIRE meant the LIBERATION of Iraq as Bill Clinton and other Democrats voted for in 1998 had to take place!

YES with the luxury of hindsight... there may not have been 576,000 starving children! Big woo! How many more would have starved if the sanctions hadn't been halted because SAddam was dead?

Invading Iraq didn't bring any starved children back to life, and, more importantly, hunger in a foreign country in and of itself is not a vital interest of the US and therefore not a justifiable cause for sending American soldiers to fight and die by the thousands.

 

[Camp]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

You know YOU MAY BE right! Maybe there weren't 576,000 children starved! YOU may be right!
BUT idiots like you keep forgetting... YOU idiots have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight! Idiot!
Do you KNOW how 90% of Americans felt after the 9/11 attack and the anthrax attacks ? You obviously were some where else on the planet but me and 90% of Americans were very very frightened even to open an envelope! Idiot!
So Yes maybe with the luxury of 10 years hindsight there May not have been 576,000 starved children!
BUT YOU idiots that ignored the fact Saddam was a dictator that VIOLATED and Broke the 1991 CEASE FIRE which as it literally means the 1991 Desert Storm had CEASED FIRE meant the LIBERATION of Iraq as Bill Clinton and other Democrats voted for in 1998 had to take place!

YES with the luxury of hindsight... there may not have been 576,000 starving children! Big woo! How many more would have starved if the sanctions hadn't been halted because SAddam was dead?

I happen to think an idiot would be someone who would write a long post like you have done, calling someone else an idiot without even reading the material in question. The article I referred to that is used in the original post had and has nothing to do with the rambling rant you are submitting. You deflected from the topic of WMD's being sent to Syria by Saddam to discussing a theory put forth that implicates the UN for causing starvation of children in Iraq. The OP of this thread had nothing to do with the topic of your rant, nor did my post about the OP using a dishonest method of misinforming.

 

[Dot Com]

OMG it never ends.

cons are STILL trying to justify vietraq and the 4,500+ dead that resulted in nothing but enriching defense contractors.

 

[jknowgood]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

You can thank the liberal bias news for the lack of information.

 

[kaz]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

The big lie of the Iraq war was the Democrats saying they were lied to.

That's why even when you are right, you are wrong. The debate should have been on our engaging in non-defensive wars, we should not. By picking the right side then turning it into a pissing match with the Republicans, you destroyed the chance to rethink and change bad policy.

 

[healthmyths]

OMG it never ends.

cons are STILL trying to justify vietraq and the 4,500+ dead that resulted in nothing but enriching defense contractors.

So you are the type of person that signs agreements KNOWING you won't keep them is that right?
Do you think your credit bureau report would love to know that when you sign for a car,mortgage,etc. YOU don't intend to keep the agreement?
By the ignorance you evidence, you the USA should be just like you,sign an agreement then ignore keeping the terms.

 

[healthmyths]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

The big lie of the Iraq war was the Democrats saying they were lied to.

That's why even when you are right, you are wrong. The debate should have been on our engaging in non-defensive wars, we should not. By picking the right side then turning it into a pissing match with the Republicans, you destroyed the chance to rethink and change bad policy.

So you are in favor OF not being involved in any treaties, agreements, SEATO,NATO,UN,etc?
You think the USA should be a strict go it alone, stop ALL relations with other countries?

 

[CowboyTed]

OMG it never ends.

I think the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus were driving the trucks...right?

I think the WMD's were taken to Syria on a fleet of short buses borrowed from the Limbaugh University for Advanced Conservative Studies.

Bullshit...

I have it from a reliable source that they are in Kenya outside Obama's house. A reliable source!!!!

But they did vacation in Benghazi....

 

[healthmyths]

OMG it never ends.

I think the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus were driving the trucks...right?

I think the WMD's were taken to Syria on a fleet of short buses borrowed from the Limbaugh University for Advanced Conservative Studies.

Bullshit...

I have it from a reliable source that they are in Kenya outside Obama's house. A reliable source!!!!

But they did vacation in Benghazi....

Hey if this administration is in charge that told us:
"based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy –sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent."
Actually yes Susan Rice did say the Benghazi attacks were spontaneous WashingtonExaminer.com"]Actually yes Susan Rice did say the Benghazi attacks were spontaneous WashingtonExaminer.com
I wouldn't be surprised!

 

[Camp]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

The big lie of the Iraq war was the Democrats saying they were lied to.

That's why even when you are right, you are wrong. The debate should have been on our engaging in non-defensive wars, we should not. By picking the right side then turning it into a pissing match with the Republicans, you destroyed the chance to rethink and change bad policy.

The debate about going to war in Iraq was not about whether to selectively engage in a non-defensive war. The whole point of the anger of being lied to is that the war was in fact presented as a defensive war. The population was lied to to convince them that the nation was in grave danger of further 9/11 type attacks from al Qaeda who was being supported and protected by Saddam and Iraq. At the very least, misinformation and cherry picked data was used to convince the American people that Saddam most definitely, without any doubt had WMD's along with an operational working relationship with the 9/11 attackers. Neither turned out to be true.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

The big lie of the Iraq war was the Democrats saying they were lied to.

That's why even when you are right, you are wrong. The debate should have been on our engaging in non-defensive wars, we should not. By picking the right side then turning it into a pissing match with the Republicans, you destroyed the chance to rethink and change bad policy.

No, the big lie is saying that the Democrats were just as guilty for getting us into Iraq as the GOP.