The Lies of the Left

[BlindBoo]

They could be re-purposed. But how did a few lost, decaying caches of these chemical warheads, in a country that had been bombed back to the stone age, pose a threat to any one but the unlucky bastard who might happen to find them?

You said it yourself, they could be "re-purposed", in otherwords eventually used to kill a lot of people.

And again (since I find myself repeating the most simple facts to liberals) the terms of the cease fire had been broken numerous times. That in itself is a justification to oust the Saddam regime.

Not as a WMD. It would need to be re-manufactured to be able to use them in anything other than an IED. They were lost through 20 years of war and sanctions. They would still be rotting underground today too......


Since the cease fire was made with the UN the decision to preemptively invade and oust Saddam's government should have been made with support of the UN. Then only if the SCR 1441 failed, as we agree to.

 

[The Rabbi]

The OP and others on the right need to put down the stones, as they live in a very large glass house.

They all do it.
Another lie of theLeft.
Leftists lie. Just like they breathe.

 

[peach174]

Just to point out there were WMDs in Iraq, just not to the scale that we were led to believe with George Tenet's "slam dunk case".

Liberalism is based on a lie. The lie that it's even possible to have a classless society where everyone works as hard as they can for a collective.

That wouldn't be a human society, that would be an ant colony.

The marxist dogma that the left is founded on is a utopian pipe dream, an utter fantasy. When you consider the hellish nightmares that marxist regimes have unleashed on people a rational person would avoid those philosophies like the plague. Bed wetting liberals have to be deliberately ignorant in order to ignore that history, or the sort of criminally insane authoritarian sociopath that desires a repeat of that history as long as they're in a good political position.

Actually there was nothing in Iraq that the Bush Administration claimed was there. The only thing they found were old stockpiles of dilapidated, unusable weapons dating from a time when Saddam was receiving support from President Reagan and President Bush (41).

Leading To War a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

They were useable, just not usable as their original intent.

They could be re-purposed. But how did a few lost, decaying caches of these chemical warheads, in a country that had been bombed back to the stone age, pose a threat to any one but the unlucky bastard who might happen to find them?

Muslim Terrorists would have loved to get their hands on them and the poor people in Iraq would have loved to have sold it to them for money.
Nothing like mustard gas in the subways of Europe and New York City eh?

 

[regent]

Just to point out there were WMDs in Iraq, just not to the scale that we were led to believe with George Tenet's "slam dunk case".

Liberalism is based on a lie. The lie that it's even possible to have a classless society where everyone works as hard as they can for a collective.

That wouldn't be a human society, that would be an ant colony.

The marxist dogma that the left is founded on is a utopian pipe dream, an utter fantasy. When you consider the hellish nightmares that marxist regimes have unleashed on people a rational person would avoid those philosophies like the plague. Bed wetting liberals have to be deliberately ignorant in order to ignore that history, or the sort of criminally insane authoritarian sociopath that desires a repeat of that history as long as they're in a good political position.

Actually there was nothing in Iraq that the Bush Administration claimed was there. The only thing they found were old stockpiles of dilapidated, unusable weapons dating from a time when Saddam was receiving support from President Reagan and President Bush (41).

Leading To War a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

Add to that Congress did not vote to invade Iraq, they gave that power and decision to Bush, as he (Bush) thought necessary. Secondly the Congress and the President did not have the same information on Iraq.

 

[The Rabbi]

Just to point out there were WMDs in Iraq, just not to the scale that we were led to believe with George Tenet's "slam dunk case".

Liberalism is based on a lie. The lie that it's even possible to have a classless society where everyone works as hard as they can for a collective.

That wouldn't be a human society, that would be an ant colony.

The marxist dogma that the left is founded on is a utopian pipe dream, an utter fantasy. When you consider the hellish nightmares that marxist regimes have unleashed on people a rational person would avoid those philosophies like the plague. Bed wetting liberals have to be deliberately ignorant in order to ignore that history, or the sort of criminally insane authoritarian sociopath that desires a repeat of that history as long as they're in a good political position.

Actually there was nothing in Iraq that the Bush Administration claimed was there. The only thing they found were old stockpiles of dilapidated, unusable weapons dating from a time when Saddam was receiving support from President Reagan and President Bush (41).

Leading To War a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

Add to that Congress did not vote to invade Iraq, they gave that power and decision to Bush, as he (Bush) thought necessary. Secondly the Congress and the President did not have the same information on Iraq.

Bullshit
Congres knew they were authorizing war. that was the whole debate.
Some members of Congress had exactly the same info.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Both sides of the political aisle claim that the other side persistently lies, but pundit Ben Shapiro has explained in various forums that the Left lies as a matter of policy, when the lies "point to a Greater Truth." Hence, they maintain a ridiculous lie even when it has been proven false, because the general impression (which they consider to be the Greater Truth) is more important than the detail of the immediate factual lie. When I heard this my mind reeled with examples of this principle. It explains so much. Consider:

"Bush lied." Anyone with a three digit IQ has long ago realized that the White House, Congress, and our major allies all had basically the SAME INFORMATION about the existence or non-existence of WMD's in Iraq. They all concluded - incorrectly, as it turns out - that Saddam did have them (because they couldn't imagine why he would act like he did, when in fact he didn't). But Libs have the problem of their own exalted leaders in Congress (Pelosi, Reid, HRC, Kerry, Biden) voting for the invasion. So they cover up their own votes with the fiction that "Bush lied" and deceived everyone - which is a preposterous lie, still repeated as though it were Gospel.

"The earth is warming!" Well, although there appears to be a long term trend of warming, there really hasn't been any significant warming for the past 15 years or so (unless you cook the books or point out aberrations to "prove" the general point). They actually thought no one would notice when they changed "global warming," to "climate change."

"Women earn only 73 cents for every dollar earned by a man." Every credible study conducted in the past 20 years concludes that women with comparable credentials, doing comparable work and having comparable responsibilities, and working similar hours are making about the same as their male counterparts. The "73 cents" lie results when you ignore different career choices, hours worked, credentials, and intentional employee decisions; in short it is a blatant lie, repeated earnestly and often by the Left.

"American public education is under-funded!" This provable lie (private, parochial, and charter schools provide a better education at lower cost), is nothing but a sop to the NEA and AFT, and even people who have unfortunately been educated in state schools are smart enough to see it. And yet every Democrat politician in the country promises to increase Education funding, as though that would improve anything more than the drastic increases in funding we've seen over the past 50 years.

"The key to bringing The Poor into the middle class is Government-provided PRE-SCHOOL!" Again, this is provably false, as "Operation Head Start," the Government's first broad-based pre-school program, has failed spectacularly to show any academic improvements in inner-city public schools, despite tens of billions spent on it over several decades. Indeed, even the Federal Government's own studies show NO DIFFERENCE in academic performance of Headstart "grads" after third grade. But government pre-schools will provide tens of thousands of marginally qualified poor women with government jobs and free babysitting, thus guaranteeing another generation of reliable Democrat votes, at taxpayer-expense.

"A higher minimum wage will reduce Income Inequality!" Ignoring for a moment the fact that "income inequality" is NOT a problem, but rather the natural result of varying degrees of success in our society, even the Democrats in Congress KNOW THAT A HIGH MINIMUM WAGE IS A BAD IDEA, as evidenced by the fact that they didn't even bring it up when they controlled the WH and both houses of Congress for the two years after Barry was elected. In fact, a higher MW will INCREASE income inequality by denying jobs to high school dropouts (mainly minority yoots), and leaving them, statistically, even worse off than they are now.

"High deficits are a GOOD thing!" Right. How are those "shovel ready projects" working out for ya?

I totally agree with this. It is impossible to have a factual debate with the left anymore because any fact that contradicts their opinions is deemed as invalid. It is a made up conscience existence for them.

 

[BlindBoo]

Just to point out there were WMDs in Iraq, just not to the scale that we were led to believe with George Tenet's "slam dunk case".

Liberalism is based on a lie. The lie that it's even possible to have a classless society where everyone works as hard as they can for a collective.

That wouldn't be a human society, that would be an ant colony.

The marxist dogma that the left is founded on is a utopian pipe dream, an utter fantasy. When you consider the hellish nightmares that marxist regimes have unleashed on people a rational person would avoid those philosophies like the plague. Bed wetting liberals have to be deliberately ignorant in order to ignore that history, or the sort of criminally insane authoritarian sociopath that desires a repeat of that history as long as they're in a good political position.

Actually there was nothing in Iraq that the Bush Administration claimed was there. The only thing they found were old stockpiles of dilapidated, unusable weapons dating from a time when Saddam was receiving support from President Reagan and President Bush (41).

Leading To War a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

They were useable, just not usable as their original intent.

They could be re-purposed. But how did a few lost, decaying caches of these chemical warheads, in a country that had been bombed back to the stone age, pose a threat to any one but the unlucky bastard who might happen to find them?

Muslim Terrorists would have loved to get their hands on them and the poor people in Iraq would have loved to have sold it to them for money.
Nothing like mustard gas in the subways of Europe and New York City eh?

Saddam was a hard line dictator. He didn't allow Islamic Terrorist Groups to operate inside his country. Furthermore he never allowed the groups he funded in Palestine or Iran to have access to such weapons.

So in reality that threat came because of the invasion, or rather the failed occupation.

 

[peach174]

Just to point out there were WMDs in Iraq, just not to the scale that we were led to believe with George Tenet's "slam dunk case".

Liberalism is based on a lie. The lie that it's even possible to have a classless society where everyone works as hard as they can for a collective.

That wouldn't be a human society, that would be an ant colony.

The marxist dogma that the left is founded on is a utopian pipe dream, an utter fantasy. When you consider the hellish nightmares that marxist regimes have unleashed on people a rational person would avoid those philosophies like the plague. Bed wetting liberals have to be deliberately ignorant in order to ignore that history, or the sort of criminally insane authoritarian sociopath that desires a repeat of that history as long as they're in a good political position.

Actually there was nothing in Iraq that the Bush Administration claimed was there. The only thing they found were old stockpiles of dilapidated, unusable weapons dating from a time when Saddam was receiving support from President Reagan and President Bush (41).

Leading To War a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

They were useable, just not usable as their original intent.

They could be re-purposed. But how did a few lost, decaying caches of these chemical warheads, in a country that had been bombed back to the stone age, pose a threat to any one but the unlucky bastard who might happen to find them?

Muslim Terrorists would have loved to get their hands on them and the poor people in Iraq would have loved to have sold it to them for money.
Nothing like mustard gas in the subways of Europe and New York City eh?

Saddam was a hard line dictator. He didn't allow Islamic Terrorist Groups to operate inside his country. Furthermore he never allowed the groups he funded in Palestine or Iran to have access to such weapons.

So in reality that threat came because of the invasion, or rather the failed occupation.

Yes that is what I was referring to as a Muslim threat, after the invasion. It was the conversation that we were discussing.

He supported secular terrorists.
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/terrorism-havens-iraq/p9513

What type of terrorist groups did Iraq support under Saddam Hussein’s regime?
Primarily groups that could hurt Saddam’s regional foes. Saddam has aided the Iranian dissident group Mujahadeen-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (known by its Turkish initials, PKK), a separatist group fighting the Turkish government. Moreover, Iraq has hosted several Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel , including the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader, Abu Nidal, was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Iraq has also supported the Islamist Hamas movement and reportedly channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. A secular dictator, however, Saddam tended to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamist ones such as al-Qaeda, experts say.

 

[The Rabbi]

Just to point out there were WMDs in Iraq, just not to the scale that we were led to believe with George Tenet's "slam dunk case".

Liberalism is based on a lie. The lie that it's even possible to have a classless society where everyone works as hard as they can for a collective.

That wouldn't be a human society, that would be an ant colony.

The marxist dogma that the left is founded on is a utopian pipe dream, an utter fantasy. When you consider the hellish nightmares that marxist regimes have unleashed on people a rational person would avoid those philosophies like the plague. Bed wetting liberals have to be deliberately ignorant in order to ignore that history, or the sort of criminally insane authoritarian sociopath that desires a repeat of that history as long as they're in a good political position.

Actually there was nothing in Iraq that the Bush Administration claimed was there. The only thing they found were old stockpiles of dilapidated, unusable weapons dating from a time when Saddam was receiving support from President Reagan and President Bush (41).

Leading To War a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

They were useable, just not usable as their original intent.

They could be re-purposed. But how did a few lost, decaying caches of these chemical warheads, in a country that had been bombed back to the stone age, pose a threat to any one but the unlucky bastard who might happen to find them?

Muslim Terrorists would have loved to get their hands on them and the poor people in Iraq would have loved to have sold it to them for money.
Nothing like mustard gas in the subways of Europe and New York City eh?

Saddam was a hard line dictator. He didn't allow Islamic Terrorist Groups to operate inside his country. Furthermore he never allowed the groups he funded in Palestine or Iran to have access to such weapons.

So in reality that threat came because of the invasion, or rather the failed occupation.

I am just at my wits end with the stupidiyt that oozes off this board every day. Stupidity and ignorance.
Saddam s Terror Training Camps The Weekly Standard

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials

 

[BlindBoo]

Actually there was nothing in Iraq that the Bush Administration claimed was there. The only thing they found were old stockpiles of dilapidated, unusable weapons dating from a time when Saddam was receiving support from President Reagan and President Bush (41).

Leading To War a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

They were useable, just not usable as their original intent.

They could be re-purposed. But how did a few lost, decaying caches of these chemical warheads, in a country that had been bombed back to the stone age, pose a threat to any one but the unlucky bastard who might happen to find them?

Muslim Terrorists would have loved to get their hands on them and the poor people in Iraq would have loved to have sold it to them for money.
Nothing like mustard gas in the subways of Europe and New York City eh?

Saddam was a hard line dictator. He didn't allow Islamic Terrorist Groups to operate inside his country. Furthermore he never allowed the groups he funded in Palestine or Iran to have access to such weapons.

So in reality that threat came because of the invasion, or rather the failed occupation.

Yes that is what I was referring to as a Muslim threat, after the invasion. It was the conversation that we were discussing.

He supported secular terrorists.
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/terrorism-havens-iraq/p9513

What type of terrorist groups did Iraq support under Saddam Hussein’s regime?
Primarily groups that could hurt Saddam’s regional foes. Saddam has aided the Iranian dissident group Mujahadeen-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (known by its Turkish initials, PKK), a separatist group fighting the Turkish government. Moreover, Iraq has hosted several Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel , including the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader, Abu Nidal, was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Iraq has also supported the Islamist Hamas movement and reportedly channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. A secular dictator, however, Saddam tended to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamist ones such as al-Qaeda, experts say.

I was discussing the reason these weapons that were found were not the WMD threat the war was sold with.

The thing about the money to the SBer families is that the money is not for them exclusively, but part of a fund for Palestinians KIA. It's that they do not exclude the families of SBer.

 

[Kosh]

Just to point out there were WMDs in Iraq, just not to the scale that we were led to believe with George Tenet's "slam dunk case".

Liberalism is based on a lie. The lie that it's even possible to have a classless society where everyone works as hard as they can for a collective.

That wouldn't be a human society, that would be an ant colony.

The marxist dogma that the left is founded on is a utopian pipe dream, an utter fantasy. When you consider the hellish nightmares that marxist regimes have unleashed on people a rational person would avoid those philosophies like the plague. Bed wetting liberals have to be deliberately ignorant in order to ignore that history, or the sort of criminally insane authoritarian sociopath that desires a repeat of that history as long as they're in a good political position.

Actually there was nothing in Iraq that the Bush Administration claimed was there. The only thing they found were old stockpiles of dilapidated, unusable weapons dating from a time when Saddam was receiving support from President Reagan and President Bush (41).

Leading To War a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

They were useable, just not usable as their original intent.

They could be re-purposed. But how did a few lost, decaying caches of these chemical warheads, in a country that had been bombed back to the stone age, pose a threat to any one but the unlucky bastard who might happen to find them?

Muslim Terrorists would have loved to get their hands on them and the poor people in Iraq would have loved to have sold it to them for money.
Nothing like mustard gas in the subways of Europe and New York City eh?

Saddam was a hard line dictator. He didn't allow Islamic Terrorist Groups to operate inside his country. Furthermore he never allowed the groups he funded in Palestine or Iran to have access to such weapons.

So in reality that threat came because of the invasion, or rather the failed occupation.

More proof that you are a far left drone!

 

[Kosh]

They were useable, just not usable as their original intent.

They could be re-purposed. But how did a few lost, decaying caches of these chemical warheads, in a country that had been bombed back to the stone age, pose a threat to any one but the unlucky bastard who might happen to find them?

Muslim Terrorists would have loved to get their hands on them and the poor people in Iraq would have loved to have sold it to them for money.
Nothing like mustard gas in the subways of Europe and New York City eh?

Saddam was a hard line dictator. He didn't allow Islamic Terrorist Groups to operate inside his country. Furthermore he never allowed the groups he funded in Palestine or Iran to have access to such weapons.

So in reality that threat came because of the invasion, or rather the failed occupation.

Yes that is what I was referring to as a Muslim threat, after the invasion. It was the conversation that we were discussing.

He supported secular terrorists.
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/terrorism-havens-iraq/p9513

What type of terrorist groups did Iraq support under Saddam Hussein’s regime?
Primarily groups that could hurt Saddam’s regional foes. Saddam has aided the Iranian dissident group Mujahadeen-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (known by its Turkish initials, PKK), a separatist group fighting the Turkish government. Moreover, Iraq has hosted several Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel , including the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader, Abu Nidal, was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Iraq has also supported the Islamist Hamas movement and reportedly channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. A secular dictator, however, Saddam tended to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamist ones such as al-Qaeda, experts say.

I was discussing the reason these weapons that were found were not the WMD threat the war was sold with.

The thing about the money to the SBer families is that the money is not for them exclusively, but part of a fund for Palestinians KIA. It's that they do not exclude the families of SBer.

The far left drones and their religious talking points..

 

[Contumacious]

Both sides of the political aisle claim that the other side persistently lies, but pundit Ben Shapiro has explained in various forums that the Left lies as a matter of policy, ?

BULLSHIT.


BOTH PARTIES - THE DEMOPUBLICANS - ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GARGANTUAN WELFARE/WARFARE POLICE STATE.


.


.

 

[2aguy]

The Dem's are fighting the school vouchers because they don't want the poor to have a better education.
They lie about this all the time too.
The Dem's just want to keep adding money, doesn't want competition and don't do a thing to change the way the school system is run.

They want more money in the education system because the liberals have turned education into a money laundering system....politicians levy taxes...they give those taxes to their democrat allies in the unions.....unions extract money from their membership whose salaries are paid and set by the poiticians.....unions give that money extracted from teachers to the politicians...who levy taxes....they give those taxes to their democrat allies in the unions....lather, rinse, repeat......

 

[2aguy]

They were useable, just not usable as their original intent.

The bed wetters say that all the time, and it's bullshit.

It really doesn't matter, because the weapons were supposed to have been destroyed and UN officials were supposed to have been able to to verify it. Saddam broke the terms of ceasefire, and he paid the price. If Clinton had done the exact same thing these sniveling little pricks would still be exhalting him as a great wartime leader.

It was in a government website report and is not bullshit.

I think you're misunderstanding me. They say the weapons weren't useable, as if they were not a danger, I say that's bullshit and I posted a link.

The fact remains that weapons that were supposed to have been destroyed were still there, and they caused injury to soldiers. UN inspectors had been routinely thwarted in their attempts to verify the weapons were gone and were thrown out of the country. That alone is a satisfactory pretense for war.

I'll also point out that it was Clinton appointee George Tenet who insisted it was a "slam dunk case" that WMDs were there, and that was the information Bush gave to the world. So if anyone "lied" here it was a democrook appointee.

Go figure.

16 intelligence agencies from around the world also supported the weapons claim....and of course beyond that.....he violated the ceasefire when he lit up our aircraft in the no fly zone.....and then he sponsored terrorists around the world, and the inspection regime was falling apart and about to end.....

He needed to be removed...but we needed to stay...and obama pulled our troops......

 

[BlindBoo]

Actually there was nothing in Iraq that the Bush Administration claimed was there. The only thing they found were old stockpiles of dilapidated, unusable weapons dating from a time when Saddam was receiving support from President Reagan and President Bush (41).

Leading To War a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

They were useable, just not usable as their original intent.

They could be re-purposed. But how did a few lost, decaying caches of these chemical warheads, in a country that had been bombed back to the stone age, pose a threat to any one but the unlucky bastard who might happen to find them?

Muslim Terrorists would have loved to get their hands on them and the poor people in Iraq would have loved to have sold it to them for money.
Nothing like mustard gas in the subways of Europe and New York City eh?

Saddam was a hard line dictator. He didn't allow Islamic Terrorist Groups to operate inside his country. Furthermore he never allowed the groups he funded in Palestine or Iran to have access to such weapons.

So in reality that threat came because of the invasion, or rather the failed occupation.

I am just at my wits end with the stupidiyt that oozes off this board every day. Stupidity and ignorance.
Saddam s Terror Training Camps The Weekly Standard

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials

Short trip?

Still singing the same tune as they were in 2001,

"First, like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein hates the United States with a vengeance he expresses at every opportunity."

"Second, Saddam Hussein has an array of chemical and biological weapons and has been willing to absorb the pain of a decade-long embargo rather than allow international inspectors to uncover the full magnitude of his program."

"Third, we know that Saddam Hussein has engaged directly in acts of terror and given sanctuary and other support to terrorists. In 1993 he planned the assassination of George H. W. Bush during the former president's visit to Kuwait. He operates a terrorist training facility at Salman Pak complete with a passenger aircraft cabin for training in hijacking."

The U.S. Must Strike at Saddam Hussein - NYTimes.com

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

They were useable, just not usable as their original intent.

They could be re-purposed. But how did a few lost, decaying caches of these chemical warheads, in a country that had been bombed back to the stone age, pose a threat to any one but the unlucky bastard who might happen to find them?

Muslim Terrorists would have loved to get their hands on them and the poor people in Iraq would have loved to have sold it to them for money.
Nothing like mustard gas in the subways of Europe and New York City eh?

Saddam was a hard line dictator. He didn't allow Islamic Terrorist Groups to operate inside his country. Furthermore he never allowed the groups he funded in Palestine or Iran to have access to such weapons.

So in reality that threat came because of the invasion, or rather the failed occupation.

I am just at my wits end with the stupidiyt that oozes off this board every day. Stupidity and ignorance.
Saddam s Terror Training Camps The Weekly Standard

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials

Short trip?

Still singing the same tune as they were in 2001,

"First, like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein hates the United States with a vengeance he expresses at every opportunity."

"Second, Saddam Hussein has an array of chemical and biological weapons and has been willing to absorb the pain of a decade-long embargo rather than allow international inspectors to uncover the full magnitude of his program."

"Third, we know that Saddam Hussein has engaged directly in acts of terror and given sanctuary and other support to terrorists. In 1993 he planned the assassination of George H. W. Bush during the former president's visit to Kuwait. He operates a terrorist training facility at Salman Pak complete with a passenger aircraft cabin for training in hijacking."

The U.S. Must Strike at Saddam Hussein - NYTimes.com

You forgot these gems:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998


“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

 

[regent]

Just to point out there were WMDs in Iraq, just not to the scale that we were led to believe with George Tenet's "slam dunk case".

Liberalism is based on a lie. The lie that it's even possible to have a classless society where everyone works as hard as they can for a collective.

That wouldn't be a human society, that would be an ant colony.

The marxist dogma that the left is founded on is a utopian pipe dream, an utter fantasy. When you consider the hellish nightmares that marxist regimes have unleashed on people a rational person would avoid those philosophies like the plague. Bed wetting liberals have to be deliberately ignorant in order to ignore that history, or the sort of criminally insane authoritarian sociopath that desires a repeat of that history as long as they're in a good political position.

Actually there was nothing in Iraq that the Bush Administration claimed was there. The only thing they found were old stockpiles of dilapidated, unusable weapons dating from a time when Saddam was receiving support from President Reagan and President Bush (41).

Leading To War a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

Add to that Congress did not vote to invade Iraq, they gave that power and decision to Bush, as he (Bush) thought necessary. Secondly the Congress and the President did not have the same information on Iraq.

Bullshit
Congres knew they were authorizing war. that was the whole debate.
Some members of Congress had exactly the same info.

Just to point out there were WMDs in Iraq, just not to the scale that we were led to believe with George Tenet's "slam dunk case".

Liberalism is based on a lie. The lie that it's even possible to have a classless society where everyone works as hard as they can for a collective.

That wouldn't be a human society, that would be an ant colony.

The marxist dogma that the left is founded on is a utopian pipe dream, an utter fantasy. When you consider the hellish nightmares that marxist regimes have unleashed on people a rational person would avoid those philosophies like the plague. Bed wetting liberals have to be deliberately ignorant in order to ignore that history, or the sort of criminally insane authoritarian sociopath that desires a repeat of that history as long as they're in a good political position.

Actually there was nothing in Iraq that the Bush Administration claimed was there. The only thing they found were old stockpiles of dilapidated, unusable weapons dating from a time when Saddam was receiving support from President Reagan and President Bush (41).

Leading To War a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

Add to that Congress did not vote to invade Iraq, they gave that power and decision to Bush, as he (Bush) thought necessary. Secondly the Congress and the President did not have the same information on Iraq.

Bullshit
Congres knew they were authorizing war. that was the whole debate.
Some members of Congress had exactly the same info.

The Congress dumped the decision onto Bush. If Bush had decided not to invade Iraq we would not have invaded, if Bush did decide to invade we would invade. It was Bush's decision, and Congress let Bush decide, it was Bush's baby. Why did only some members of Congress have the same information as the president, did that mean the Congress and the president did not have the same information on Iraq? So, Congress passed a war resolution and some did not have all the information.

 

[2aguy]

Just to point out there were WMDs in Iraq, just not to the scale that we were led to believe with George Tenet's "slam dunk case".

Liberalism is based on a lie. The lie that it's even possible to have a classless society where everyone works as hard as they can for a collective.

That wouldn't be a human society, that would be an ant colony.

The marxist dogma that the left is founded on is a utopian pipe dream, an utter fantasy. When you consider the hellish nightmares that marxist regimes have unleashed on people a rational person would avoid those philosophies like the plague. Bed wetting liberals have to be deliberately ignorant in order to ignore that history, or the sort of criminally insane authoritarian sociopath that desires a repeat of that history as long as they're in a good political position.

Actually there was nothing in Iraq that the Bush Administration claimed was there. The only thing they found were old stockpiles of dilapidated, unusable weapons dating from a time when Saddam was receiving support from President Reagan and President Bush (41).

Leading To War a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

Add to that Congress did not vote to invade Iraq, they gave that power and decision to Bush, as he (Bush) thought necessary. Secondly the Congress and the President did not have the same information on Iraq.

Bullshit
Congres knew they were authorizing war. that was the whole debate.
Some members of Congress had exactly the same info.

Just to point out there were WMDs in Iraq, just not to the scale that we were led to believe with George Tenet's "slam dunk case".

Liberalism is based on a lie. The lie that it's even possible to have a classless society where everyone works as hard as they can for a collective.

That wouldn't be a human society, that would be an ant colony.

The marxist dogma that the left is founded on is a utopian pipe dream, an utter fantasy. When you consider the hellish nightmares that marxist regimes have unleashed on people a rational person would avoid those philosophies like the plague. Bed wetting liberals have to be deliberately ignorant in order to ignore that history, or the sort of criminally insane authoritarian sociopath that desires a repeat of that history as long as they're in a good political position.

Actually there was nothing in Iraq that the Bush Administration claimed was there. The only thing they found were old stockpiles of dilapidated, unusable weapons dating from a time when Saddam was receiving support from President Reagan and President Bush (41).

Leading To War a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

Add to that Congress did not vote to invade Iraq, they gave that power and decision to Bush, as he (Bush) thought necessary. Secondly the Congress and the President did not have the same information on Iraq.

Bullshit
Congres knew they were authorizing war. that was the whole debate.
Some members of Congress had exactly the same info.

The Congress dumped the decision onto Bush. If Bush had decided not to invade Iraq we would not have invaded, if Bush did decide to invade we would invade. It was Bush's decision, and Congress let Bush decide, it was Bush's baby. Why did only some members of Congress have the same information as the president, did that mean the Congress and the president did not have the same information on Iraq? So, Congress passed a war resolution and some did not have all the information.

the leadership in the House and Senate....the heads of the relevant committees.....all had the same info.........

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Just to point out there were WMDs in Iraq, just not to the scale that we were led to believe with George Tenet's "slam dunk case".

Liberalism is based on a lie. The lie that it's even possible to have a classless society where everyone works as hard as they can for a collective.

That wouldn't be a human society, that would be an ant colony.

The marxist dogma that the left is founded on is a utopian pipe dream, an utter fantasy. When you consider the hellish nightmares that marxist regimes have unleashed on people a rational person would avoid those philosophies like the plague. Bed wetting liberals have to be deliberately ignorant in order to ignore that history, or the sort of criminally insane authoritarian sociopath that desires a repeat of that history as long as they're in a good political position.

Actually there was nothing in Iraq that the Bush Administration claimed was there. The only thing they found were old stockpiles of dilapidated, unusable weapons dating from a time when Saddam was receiving support from President Reagan and President Bush (41).

Leading To War a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

Add to that Congress did not vote to invade Iraq, they gave that power and decision to Bush, as he (Bush) thought necessary. Secondly the Congress and the President did not have the same information on Iraq.

Bullshit
Congres knew they were authorizing war. that was the whole debate.
Some members of Congress had exactly the same info.

Just to point out there were WMDs in Iraq, just not to the scale that we were led to believe with George Tenet's "slam dunk case".

Liberalism is based on a lie. The lie that it's even possible to have a classless society where everyone works as hard as they can for a collective.

That wouldn't be a human society, that would be an ant colony.

The marxist dogma that the left is founded on is a utopian pipe dream, an utter fantasy. When you consider the hellish nightmares that marxist regimes have unleashed on people a rational person would avoid those philosophies like the plague. Bed wetting liberals have to be deliberately ignorant in order to ignore that history, or the sort of criminally insane authoritarian sociopath that desires a repeat of that history as long as they're in a good political position.

Actually there was nothing in Iraq that the Bush Administration claimed was there. The only thing they found were old stockpiles of dilapidated, unusable weapons dating from a time when Saddam was receiving support from President Reagan and President Bush (41).

Leading To War a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

Add to that Congress did not vote to invade Iraq, they gave that power and decision to Bush, as he (Bush) thought necessary. Secondly the Congress and the President did not have the same information on Iraq.

Bullshit
Congres knew they were authorizing war. that was the whole debate.
Some members of Congress had exactly the same info.

The Congress dumped the decision onto Bush. If Bush had decided not to invade Iraq we would not have invaded, if Bush did decide to invade we would invade. It was Bush's decision, and Congress let Bush decide, it was Bush's baby. Why did only some members of Congress have the same information as the president, did that mean the Congress and the president did not have the same information on Iraq? So, Congress passed a war resolution and some did not have all the information.

Yeah, that's what happened...