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

[Faun]

Suggesting she had even more intel than Bush is even more insane. First Ladies do not share the same level of clearance as the president. Besides, she had not been First Lady for almost 2 years by the time our intelligence community provided Bush and Congress an NIE on Iraq. And Senator Clinton did not have the same level of clearance as Bush and therefore, did not receive the same intel as Bush.

Yet another lie you sack of shit....the intel was provided in a secure area of the Capitol building....none of your Rats bothered to go look at it.....you really suck...a liar and a ******* moron to think your tales will float......enough of you.

You truly are committed to proving you're an imbecile. At least you found something you're quite adept at.

Most of Congress does not have the same security clearance as the president. I cab't believe you don't know that. Regardless of your ignorance, Bush and members of Congressional select intelligence committees were privy to the full 96 page NIE. The rest of the Congress, including Hillary Clinton, we're provided a heavily redacted 28 page white paper.

Now ya know.

They do talk to each other and the members of the select intelligence committees voted FOR the Iraq resolution.

Oh please, now you're grasping at straws. Do you know what the penalty is for knowingly revealing classified intelligence to someone with a lower security clearance who's not permitted access?

 

[BullKurtz]

Ha’aretz has revived the mystery surrounding the inability to find weapons of mass destruction stockpiles in Iraq, the most commonly cited justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom and one of the most embarrassing episodes for the United States. Satellite photos of a suspicious site in Syria are providing new support for the reporting of a Syrian journalist who briefly rocked the world with his reporting that Iraq’s WMD had been sent to three sites in Syria just before the invasion commenced.

The newspaper reveals that a 200 square-kilometer area in northwestern Syria has been photographed by satellites at the request of a Western intelligence agency at least 16 times, the most recent being taken in January. The site is near Masyaf, and it has at least five installations and hidden paths leading underneath the mountains. This supports the reporting of Nizar Nayouf, an award-winning Syrian journalist who said in 2004 that his sources confirmed that Saddam Hussein’s WMDs were in Syria.

One of the three specific sites he mentioned was an underground base underneath Al-Baida, which is one kilometer south of Masyaf. This is a perfect match. The suspicious features in the photos and the fact that a Western intelligence agency is so interested in the site support Nayouf’s reporting, showing that his sources in Syria did indeed have access to specific information about secret activity that is likely WMD-related. Richard Radcliffe, one of my co-writers at WorldThreats.com, noticed that Masyaf is located on a road that goes from Hamah, where there is an airfield sufficient to handle relatively large aircraft, into Lebanon and the western side of the Bekaa Valley, another location said to house Iraqi weapons.

It seems to be commonly accepted that Iraq did not have WMDs at all. The intelligence was obviously flawed, but the book has not been closed on what actually happened. The media blasted the headline that Charles Duelfer, the head of the Iraq Survey Group tasked with finding out if Saddam had WMDs, concluded that a transfer did not occur. In reality, his report said they were “unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war” due to the poor security situation.

Although no conclusion was made, Duelfer has since said that he is “convinced” that no WMD went to Syria. He is a competent and credible individual, but there is evidence that key information on this possibility was not received by the Iraq Survey Group, which had many of its own problems.

On February 24, 2009, I went to see a talk Duelfer gave at the Free Library of Philadelphia to promote his book. He admitted there were some “loose ends” regarding the possibility that Iraqi WMD went to Syria, but dismissed them. Among these “loose ends,” Duelfer said, was the inability to track down the Iraqis who worked for a company connected to Uday Hussein that sources said had driven “sensitive” material into Syria. A Pentagon document reveals that an Iraqi dissident reported that 50 trucks crossed the border on March 10, 2003, and that his sources in Syria confirmed they carried WMD. These trucks have been talked about frequently and remain a mystery.

During the question-and-answer period and during a follow-up interview, Duelfer made several interesting statements to me that reinforced my confidence that such a transfer occurred, although we can not be sure of the extent of it.

General Georges Sada, the former second-in-command of the Iraqi Air Force, claimed in his 2006 book that he knew two Iraqi pilots that flew WMD into Syria over the summer of 2002, which came before a later shipment on the ground. I asked Duelfer if Nizar Nayouf or the two Iraqi pilots were spoken with.

“I did not interview the pilots nor did I speak with the Syrian journalist you mentioned,” he said. “We were inundated with WMD reports and could not investigate them all. … To narrow the problem, we investigated those people and places we knew would have either been involved or aware of regime WMD activities.”

He then told me that the lack of testimony about such dealings is what convinced him that “a lot of material went to Syria, but no WMD.” He cited the testimony of Naji Sabri, the former Iraqi foreign minister, in particular.

“I knew him very well, and I had been authorized to make his life a lot better, or a lot worse,” he told me.

Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria PJ Media

 

[kaz]

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.

Right, that's the big lie, the crap you said. Democrats were not lied to, you were hand in hand with W thought the whole thing. Then you screwed your country for cheap political points. You were wrong and you were wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.


Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Salon.com

What a sucker. Democrats love you. There are two parties of which almost everyone is a member of one or the other. To believe that one in such a short time completely hoodwinked the other to that magnitude is just pathetically gullible. And if you want to go the WMD debate, it's irrelevant if Saddam had "stockpiles" or not. He could make them, we know, because he used them. That is what is a threat. If you really supported the war for WMDs, you should still support it. But of course partisan points are you goal, so you go the route to get them

Yes sure, pseudo-libertarians and pseudo-conservatives love your worn out talking points. Saddam was always able to make less sophisticated chemical weapons but wasn't able to make the move advanced ones until he got a little help from his friend Ronnie Raygun and a host of Western nations who supplied him with precursor chemicals and duel use technology to do so. But it was all known quantities. In fact it was a discrepancies in the precursors he purchased and what he could prove was either used in the war with Iran or destroyed via the UN resolution that ever gave legs to any accusation that Iraq still had some capacity to make more of those Chemical Weapons. One of the many talking points the Bush Administration always floated to fright **** America was Iraq's ever growing stockpile of newly manufactured WMD.

Gotcha, sucker. You look at two parties who said and did the same things, and you point your finger at one and let the other off the hook. And conveniently, it's your side you hold blameless and your enemy you blame. You're a sap. And when I say it's both of you who said and did the same things, you're like what? Both of us are responsible for what we did? What a screwball! We're not responsible for anything! They did it all!

LOL. You're a tool of the Democrats. They lied. I don't know what makes you more idiotic, not believing them and repeating their finger pointing crap? Or actually believing them. Wow.

 

[candycorn]

Suggesting she had even more intel than Bush is even more insane. First Ladies do not share the same level of clearance as the president. Besides, she had not been First Lady for almost 2 years by the time our intelligence community provided Bush and Congress an NIE on Iraq. And Senator Clinton did not have the same level of clearance as Bush and therefore, did not receive the same intel as Bush.

Yet another lie you sack of shit....the intel was provided in a secure area of the Capitol building....none of your Rats bothered to go look at it.....you really suck...a liar and a ******* moron to think your tales will float......enough of you.

You truly are committed to proving you're an imbecile. At least you found something you're quite adept at.

Most of Congress does not have the same security clearance as the president. I cab't believe you don't know that. Regardless of your ignorance, Bush and members of Congressional select intelligence committees were privy to the full 96 page NIE. The rest of the Congress, including Hillary Clinton, we're provided a heavily redacted 28 page white paper.

Now ya know.

They do talk to each other and the members of the select intelligence committees voted FOR the Iraq resolution.

Oh please, now you're grasping at straws. Do you know what the penalty is for knowingly revealing classified intelligence to someone with a lower security clearance who's not permitted access?

Bush says there were none. The CIA source of the original intel "curveball", says there were none. But some guy named bill knows better. Don't you see how this works?

 

[candycorn]

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Right, that's the big lie, the crap you said. Democrats were not lied to, you were hand in hand with W thought the whole thing. Then you screwed your country for cheap political points. You were wrong and you were wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.


Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Salon.com

What a sucker. Democrats love you. There are two parties of which almost everyone is a member of one or the other. To believe that one in such a short time completely hoodwinked the other to that magnitude is just pathetically gullible. And if you want to go the WMD debate, it's irrelevant if Saddam had "stockpiles" or not. He could make them, we know, because he used them. That is what is a threat. If you really supported the war for WMDs, you should still support it. But of course partisan points are you goal, so you go the route to get them

Yes sure, pseudo-libertarians and pseudo-conservatives love your worn out talking points. Saddam was always able to make less sophisticated chemical weapons but wasn't able to make the move advanced ones until he got a little help from his friend Ronnie Raygun and a host of Western nations who supplied him with precursor chemicals and duel use technology to do so. But it was all known quantities. In fact it was a discrepancies in the precursors he purchased and what he could prove was either used in the war with Iran or destroyed via the UN resolution that ever gave legs to any accusation that Iraq still had some capacity to make more of those Chemical Weapons. One of the many talking points the Bush Administration always floated to fright **** America was Iraq's ever growing stockpile of newly manufactured WMD.

Gotcha, sucker. You look at two parties who said and did the same things, and you point your finger at one and let the other off the hook. And conveniently, it's your side you hold blameless and your enemy you blame. You're a sap. And when I say it's both of you who said and did the same things, you're like what? Both of us are responsible for what we did? What a screwball! We're not responsible for anything! They did it all!

LOL. You're a tool of the Democrats. They lied. I don't know what makes you more idiotic, not believing them and repeating their finger pointing crap? Or actually believing them. Wow.

Everyone knows there are war-hawks in both parties. IMO, Everyone in Congress who voted to give President Bush the deciding power to use military force in Iraq should have resigned in disgrace for abdicating their constitutional responsibility. Now tell me who I let off the hook.

 

[TooTall]

Right, that's the big lie, the crap you said. Democrats were not lied to, you were hand in hand with W thought the whole thing. Then you screwed your country for cheap political points. You were wrong and you were wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.


Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Salon.com

What a sucker. Democrats love you. There are two parties of which almost everyone is a member of one or the other. To believe that one in such a short time completely hoodwinked the other to that magnitude is just pathetically gullible. And if you want to go the WMD debate, it's irrelevant if Saddam had "stockpiles" or not. He could make them, we know, because he used them. That is what is a threat. If you really supported the war for WMDs, you should still support it. But of course partisan points are you goal, so you go the route to get them

Yes sure, pseudo-libertarians and pseudo-conservatives love your worn out talking points. Saddam was always able to make less sophisticated chemical weapons but wasn't able to make the move advanced ones until he got a little help from his friend Ronnie Raygun and a host of Western nations who supplied him with precursor chemicals and duel use technology to do so. But it was all known quantities. In fact it was a discrepancies in the precursors he purchased and what he could prove was either used in the war with Iran or destroyed via the UN resolution that ever gave legs to any accusation that Iraq still had some capacity to make more of those Chemical Weapons. One of the many talking points the Bush Administration always floated to fright **** America was Iraq's ever growing stockpile of newly manufactured WMD.

Gotcha, sucker. You look at two parties who said and did the same things, and you point your finger at one and let the other off the hook. And conveniently, it's your side you hold blameless and your enemy you blame. You're a sap. And when I say it's both of you who said and did the same things, you're like what? Both of us are responsible for what we did? What a screwball! We're not responsible for anything! They did it all!

LOL. You're a tool of the Democrats. They lied. I don't know what makes you more idiotic, not believing them and repeating their finger pointing crap? Or actually believing them. Wow.

Everyone knows there are war-hawks in both parties. IMO, Everyone in Congress who voted to give President Bush the deciding power to use military force in Iraq should have resigned in disgrace for abdicating their constitutional responsibility. Now tell me who I let off the hook.

So far, two of them not only didn't resign, they both ran for President. Kerry and Clinton

 

[BlindBoo]

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.


Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Salon.com

What a sucker. Democrats love you. There are two parties of which almost everyone is a member of one or the other. To believe that one in such a short time completely hoodwinked the other to that magnitude is just pathetically gullible. And if you want to go the WMD debate, it's irrelevant if Saddam had "stockpiles" or not. He could make them, we know, because he used them. That is what is a threat. If you really supported the war for WMDs, you should still support it. But of course partisan points are you goal, so you go the route to get them

Yes sure, pseudo-libertarians and pseudo-conservatives love your worn out talking points. Saddam was always able to make less sophisticated chemical weapons but wasn't able to make the move advanced ones until he got a little help from his friend Ronnie Raygun and a host of Western nations who supplied him with precursor chemicals and duel use technology to do so. But it was all known quantities. In fact it was a discrepancies in the precursors he purchased and what he could prove was either used in the war with Iran or destroyed via the UN resolution that ever gave legs to any accusation that Iraq still had some capacity to make more of those Chemical Weapons. One of the many talking points the Bush Administration always floated to fright **** America was Iraq's ever growing stockpile of newly manufactured WMD.

Gotcha, sucker. You look at two parties who said and did the same things, and you point your finger at one and let the other off the hook. And conveniently, it's your side you hold blameless and your enemy you blame. You're a sap. And when I say it's both of you who said and did the same things, you're like what? Both of us are responsible for what we did? What a screwball! We're not responsible for anything! They did it all!

LOL. You're a tool of the Democrats. They lied. I don't know what makes you more idiotic, not believing them and repeating their finger pointing crap? Or actually believing them. Wow.

Everyone knows there are war-hawks in both parties. IMO, Everyone in Congress who voted to give President Bush the deciding power to use military force in Iraq should have resigned in disgrace for abdicating their constitutional responsibility. Now tell me who I let off the hook.

So far, two of them not only didn't resign, they both ran for President. Kerry and Clinton

I didn't vote for either one.

 

[Dot Com]

,

It's all true, Breitbart and the KKK told me so and asked that I give them one month's salary every year for the truth!!!

Your month's salary=$30 in aluminum recycling and $130 of SNAP benefits....no wonder they laughed you out of the "KKK".....BTW comedians are usually very ANGRY people.....plus you're not funny.

Talk about not funny....I'm actually laughing at how lame your attempt at humor was.

This thread seriously belongs either in the Conspiracy theories or Rubber Room sub-forums. OP has simply bloviated a bunch of unsourced opinions :yawn:

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I've gone through and cleaned up this thread. The non-content insults need to stop.

 

[kaz]

Right, that's the big lie, the crap you said. Democrats were not lied to, you were hand in hand with W thought the whole thing. Then you screwed your country for cheap political points. You were wrong and you were wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.


Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Salon.com

What a sucker. Democrats love you. There are two parties of which almost everyone is a member of one or the other. To believe that one in such a short time completely hoodwinked the other to that magnitude is just pathetically gullible. And if you want to go the WMD debate, it's irrelevant if Saddam had "stockpiles" or not. He could make them, we know, because he used them. That is what is a threat. If you really supported the war for WMDs, you should still support it. But of course partisan points are you goal, so you go the route to get them

Yes sure, pseudo-libertarians and pseudo-conservatives love your worn out talking points. Saddam was always able to make less sophisticated chemical weapons but wasn't able to make the move advanced ones until he got a little help from his friend Ronnie Raygun and a host of Western nations who supplied him with precursor chemicals and duel use technology to do so. But it was all known quantities. In fact it was a discrepancies in the precursors he purchased and what he could prove was either used in the war with Iran or destroyed via the UN resolution that ever gave legs to any accusation that Iraq still had some capacity to make more of those Chemical Weapons. One of the many talking points the Bush Administration always floated to fright **** America was Iraq's ever growing stockpile of newly manufactured WMD.

Gotcha, sucker. You look at two parties who said and did the same things, and you point your finger at one and let the other off the hook. And conveniently, it's your side you hold blameless and your enemy you blame. You're a sap. And when I say it's both of you who said and did the same things, you're like what? Both of us are responsible for what we did? What a screwball! We're not responsible for anything! They did it all!

LOL. You're a tool of the Democrats. They lied. I don't know what makes you more idiotic, not believing them and repeating their finger pointing crap? Or actually believing them. Wow.

Everyone knows there are war-hawks in both parties. IMO, Everyone in Congress who voted to give President Bush the deciding power to use military force in Iraq should have resigned in disgrace for abdicating their constitutional responsibility. Now tell me who I let off the hook.

So you attack and attack the Republicans, but in theory you hold some Democrats accountable. Yeah, that's the same.

Democrats did a lot more than just vote for it. Even many who didn't said they just wanted to give Saddam more time to comply. And frankly W wasn't lying, he believed it. It's all a cluster. And it detracts from the real issue which is we should not have gone in regardless of WMDs.

 

[BullKurtz]

So you attack and attack the Republicans, but in theory you hold some Democrats accountable. Yeah, that's the same.

Democrats did a lot more than just vote for it. Even many who didn't said they just wanted to give Saddam more time to comply. And frankly W wasn't lying, he believed it. It's all a cluster. And it detracts from the real issue which is we should not have gone in regardless of WMDs.

We didn't go in for the WMDs....we went in to draw in the thousands of AQ fighters who ran from Afghanistan....that's what "Bring it ON" was all about....fight our warriors instead of our office workers. And they came in....and we murdered them by the bushel.....over 14K hardcore AQ and Fedayeen Saddam sent to Allah...better than 3-1 our number of KIA....and they wouldn't fight us like men.....the cowards killed most of our Troopers with IEDs and snipers....chickenshits.

 

[Siete]

So you attack and attack the Republicans, but in theory you hold some Democrats accountable. Yeah, that's the same.

Democrats did a lot more than just vote for it. Even many who didn't said they just wanted to give Saddam more time to comply. And frankly W wasn't lying, he believed it. It's all a cluster. And it detracts from the real issue which is we should not have gone in regardless of WMDs.

We didn't go in for the WMDs....we went in to draw in the thousands of AQ fighters who ran from Afghanistan....that's what "Bring it ON" was all about....fight our warriors instead of our office workers. And they came in....and we murdered them by the bushel.....over 14K hardcore AQ sent to Allah...better than 3-1 our number of KIA....and they wouldn't fight us like men.....the cowards killed most of our Troopers with IEDs and snipers....chickenshits.

give it a rest BullshitterUSMC.. the SOTUA says otherwise ... at the end of the day it was all about regime change, nothing more.

 

[BullKurtz]

give it a rest BullshitterUSMC.. the SOTUA says otherwise ... at the end of the day it was all about regime change, nothing more.

Nobody keeping you here asshole.....feel free to bounce.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which makes you wonder why we invaded a country that had zero nuke weapons....

Here is what you're arguing:

We knew the WMDs were long gone but went in anyway? Sell stupid somewhere else, thanks to you we have more than enough to last a century plus.

Somebody sold you STUPID alright but it wasn't us....and again, although the CIA had the sat photos, they didn't realize what might be in the trucks...if we had what would you have had us do....strafe them setting off those munitions on a nation we were to occupy and kill the dozens of russian Spetnaz driving those trucks enraging the old USSR boys chomping at the bit to get back into power?

The direct question to you is,

if Saddam had multiple operational WMD programs, capable of representing an imminent threat to the US,

where are the personnel who were a part of them?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

OMG it never ends.

But don't you dare say "...buh...buh...but Bush!"

Iran has WMD. North Korea has WMD. Pakistan supposedly does too. Buh-buh-buh Saddam "...tried to kill my Daddy!" Waaaaaaaah.
Dubya's vanity war.

 

[BullKurtz]

The direct question to you is,

if Saddam had multiple operational WMD programs, capable of representing an imminent threat to the US,

where are the personnel who were a part of them?

Asked and answered....try reading the whole thread next time.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

So you attack and attack the Republicans, but in theory you hold some Democrats accountable. Yeah, that's the same.

Democrats did a lot more than just vote for it. Even many who didn't said they just wanted to give Saddam more time to comply. And frankly W wasn't lying, he believed it. It's all a cluster. And it detracts from the real issue which is we should not have gone in regardless of WMDs.

We didn't go in for the WMDs....we went in to draw in the thousands of AQ fighters who ran from Afghanistan....

Only to find out 8 years later that they actually went to Pakistan? Ooops, where did OBL get that bullet in his bonnet?

So much ruminating with all this excellent 20-20 BEHIND SIGHT.

LMAO!!!!

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

The direct question to you is,

if Saddam had multiple operational WMD programs, capable of representing an imminent threat to the US,

where are the personnel who were a part of them?

Asked and answered....try reading the whole thread next time.

Too time consuming. If you can't make your point in less than 50 words 12 years after the massive clusterfuck, then it ain't worth reading.

 

[BullKurtz]

The only strategy area Bush messed up was letting Rumsfeld go ahead with the invasion after Turkey reneged on allowing 4th ID from sweeping down through the Sunni Triangle. But summer was coming and you can't leave warriors in a staging area longer than a week, maybe two. Without that piece of the pincer, there was nobody to police the weapons caches (mostly artillery shells) Saddam had up there and the insurgents got to them before we could. Had Turkey not fucked us there would have been no insurgency and Iraq would have been pacified in a matter of weeks....they should have been thrown out of NATO for that.