The NY Times ,Clinton's 1998 Iraq Liberation Act & 3,168,000 Iraqi children agree: There were WMDs!

[AntonToo]

So Bush in calling Saddam's bluff

So you agree, THERE WERE NO WMDS IN IRAQ, which were used as justification for the war - correct?

 

[Tehon]

we did. why you guys saddle with saddam and the castros will always astound me, monsters all.

Actually they did.

Rotting, buried and forgotten weapons, built with the consent of the US for a bygone war do not constitute an active weapons program. GFY

Read the fucking article. His two son in laws said it. The UN voted 15-0 cause of at least 17 violations you fucking piece of shit.

I did read it fucktard.

The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.

 

[washamericom]

we did. why you guys saddle with saddam and the castros will always astound me, monsters all.

Actually they did.

Rotting, buried and forgotten weapons, built with the consent of the US for a bygone war do not constitute an active weapons program. GFY

Blog: NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after all

 

[BlindBoo]

built with the consent of the US

Consent?

How about approval of, money for, and actively selling and authorizing our allied in Germany and the UK to sell advanced Western technology as well.

 

[AntonToo]

we did. why you guys saddle with saddam and the castros will always astound me, monsters all.

Actually they did.

Rotting, buried and forgotten weapons, built with the consent of the US for a bygone war do not constitute an active weapons program. GFY

Blog: NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after all

President Bush discovering there were no WMD's after all:

...Bush admits that he was shocked when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

"No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," he writes.

"I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."

George W Bush had 'sickening feeling' over WMD lack - BBC News


I mean at what point you rightwinger wakadooss are going to give this WMD bullshit up? What will it take??

 

[washamericom]

In fact, Morell recently published a book where he reiterates the aforementioned point and emphatically states that the Bush administration did not pressure the CIA whatsoever to conclude there were WMDs in Iraq.

“The view that hardliners in the Bush administration forced the intelligence community into its position on WMD is just flat wrong,” he writes. “No one pushed. The analysts were already there and they had been there for years, long before Bush came to office.”

This is similar to the conclusion of 2005’s bipartisan Robb-Silberman Commission.

“[W]e closely examined the possibility that intelligence analysts were pressured by policymakers to change their judgments about Iraq’s nuclear, biological, chemical weapons programs,” the report reads. “The analysts who worked Iraqi weapons issues universally agreed that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments.”

But back to Morell’s new book.

“An NIE,” Morell writes, “represents the authoritative view of the entire intelligence community on an issue. They are carefully considered. The coordination sessions among the analysts are rigorous and NIEs are approved by the leadership of each agencies in the community.”

As for the conclusions laid out in the NIE that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs, “there was little controversy” within the intelligence community, Morell continued.

“One agency, the State Department’s intelligence shop, dissented on one aspect of the paper, the nuclear question, but agreed on all others because almost everyone who had looked at the issue — from intelligence services around the world to think tanks and the United Nations itself — had come to the same conclusion,” he went on. “There were no outliers, no group with a different view. No one to force a broader debate that might have led to a more rigorous assessment on the part of the analysts. Group think turned out to be part of the problem.”

The only part left of Beinart’s nonsense indictment is that a British analyst argued in 2002 that “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” of removing Saddam Hussein from power. He is referring to the Downing Street Memo.

This is not much of a leg to stand on, but it is worth pointing to the late Christopher Hitchens dismissal of it. A child of Britain, Hitchens noted, “the English employ the word ‘fix’ in a slightly different way—a better term might have been ‘organized.'”

So criticize Bush’s decision to go into Iraq all you want. But the evidence was what it was. Our intelligence community got it wrong about Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction. Bush didn’t lie, nor did his administration pressure the intelligence community into concluding what it did about WMDs.

It would be nice if the left would stop falsifying history.



Read more: Stop It, Liberals: Bush Didn’t Lie About Iraq Having WMDs

 

[bodecea]

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."

Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia


Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.

Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!

If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.

By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?

By Desert Storm there were no viable WMDs in Iraq. But feel free to keep digging for them.

 

[bodecea]

Year is 2017, this thing is long settled buddy. Time to move on at some point.

Pre-emptive WMD arguments for Iraq invasion were a complete bust as Bush himself long ago acknowledged. Saddam was bluffing to keep his neighbors in check, did not actually have an advanced nuclear program the war was sold on.

Doesn't alter FACT!
YES! Saddam was bluffing but Saddam denied allowing children to starve.
Bush calling his bluff saved 3 million kids from starvation! You don't think that was worth it?

While I despised Saddam, he WAS the leader of a sovereign country being ordered around. How do you think the so-called president should react if Russia orders us to open up to inspectors to come waltzing thru our country?

 

[washamericom]

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."

Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia


Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.

Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!

If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.

By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?

By Desert Storm there were no viable WMDs in Iraq. But feel free to keep digging for them.

iraq is a pretty big place, we did find saddam right away either. sorry amigo, saddam himself was a weapon of mass destruction, as were his sons.

 

[washamericom]

Year is 2017, this thing is long settled buddy. Time to move on at some point.

Pre-emptive WMD arguments for Iraq invasion were a complete bust as Bush himself long ago acknowledged. Saddam was bluffing to keep his neighbors in check, did not actually have an advanced nuclear program the war was sold on.

Doesn't alter FACT!
YES! Saddam was bluffing but Saddam denied allowing children to starve.
Bush calling his bluff saved 3 million kids from starvation! You don't think that was worth it?

While I despised Saddam, he WAS the leader of a sovereign country being ordered around. How do you think the so-called president should react if Russia orders us to open up to inspectors to come waltzing thru our country?

what about kuwait, and using chemweps on "his people" ?

these photos are aways a powerful reminder. i'm glad he's dead. i wish both castros were, never soon enough.

and the left wonders why we think they might be a bit off.

 

[washamericom]

we did. why you guys saddle with saddam and the castros will always astound me, monsters all.

Actually they did.

Rotting, buried and forgotten weapons, built with the consent of the US for a bygone war do not constitute an active weapons program. GFY

Blog: NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after all

President Bush discovering there were no WMD's after all:

...Bush admits that he was shocked when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

"No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," he writes.

"I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."

George W Bush had 'sickening feeling' over WMD lack - BBC News


I mean at what point you rightwinger wakadooss are going to give this WMD bullshit up? What will it take??

i'm not sure why he did that, he was vindicated.

 

[Theowl32]

we did. why you guys saddle with saddam and the castros will always astound me, monsters all.

Actually they did.

Rotting, buried and forgotten weapons, built with the consent of the US for a bygone war do not constitute an active weapons program. GFY

Blog: NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after all

President Bush discovering there were no WMD's after all:

...Bush admits that he was shocked when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

"No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," he writes.

"I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."

George W Bush had 'sickening feeling' over WMD lack - BBC News


I mean at what point you rightwinger wakadooss are going to give this WMD bullshit up? What will it take??

i'm not sure why he did that, he was vindicated.

There were actual reasons they did not want the world to know.

Why the World Did Not Know about WMD in Iraq

You obviously did not read the articles.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Year is 2017, this thing is long settled, buddy. Time to move on at some point.

Pre-emptive WMD arguments for Iraq invasion were a complete bust as Bush himself long ago acknowledged. Saddam was bluffing to keep his neighbors in check, did not actually have an advanced nuclear program the war was sold on.

Doesn't alter FACT!
YES! Saddam was bluffing but Saddam denied allowing children to starve.
Bush calling his bluff saved 3 million kids from starvation.

To Stop the Swarm, Stop the Spawn

Blowflies breed maggots. If you could handle the truth, you'd know that most of those kids Dubai Dubya saved grew up to join ISIS.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."

Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia


Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.

Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!

If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.

By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?

"the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t" ~ George Bush, mass murderer, 2006

Calling Bill and Hillary liars, tsk tsk.

Neither of them were the command-in-chief who sent in 150,000 troops over WMD that weren't there.

Low Thought-Intensity Conflict

And Bush knew they weren't there. It would have been political suicide to send troops in who would get wiped out by WMDs. They should be as destructive as short-range nukes. In that case (but somehow we're supposed to believe differently about Saddam's WMDs), all we could do was starve the Iraqis out in an old-fashioned siege.

 

[Weatherman2020]

we did. why you guys saddle with saddam and the castros will always astound me, monsters all.

Actually they did.

Rotting, buried and forgotten weapons, built with the consent of the US for a bygone war do not constitute an active weapons program. GFY

Blog: NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after all

President Bush discovering there were no WMD's after all:

...Bush admits that he was shocked when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

"No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," he writes.

"I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."

George W Bush had 'sickening feeling' over WMD lack - BBC News


I mean at what point you rightwinger wakadooss are going to give this WMD bullshit up? What will it take??

The left feel the need to keep proving they are the most ignorant species on earth.

 

[healthmyths]

So Bush in calling Saddam's bluff

So you agree, THERE WERE NO WMDS IN IRAQ, which were used as justification for the war - correct?

No I still don't know what went to Syria.
Former Iraqi general Georges Sada claimed that in late 2002, Saddam had ordered all of his stockpiles to be moved to Syria. He appeared on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes in January 2006 to discuss his book, Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein. Anticipating the arrival of weapon inspectors on November 1, Sada said Saddam took advantage of the June 4 Zeyzoun Dam disaster in Syria by forming an "air bridge", loading them onto cargo aircraft and flying them out of the country.
They were moved by air and by ground, 56 sorties by jumbo, 747, and 27 were moved, after they were converted to cargo aircraft, they were moved to Syria.

And the justification was this:
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

 

[healthmyths]

Year is 2017, this thing is long settled, buddy. Time to move on at some point.

Pre-emptive WMD arguments for Iraq invasion were a complete bust as Bush himself long ago acknowledged. Saddam was bluffing to keep his neighbors in check, did not actually have an advanced nuclear program the war was sold on.

Doesn't alter FACT!
YES! Saddam was bluffing but Saddam denied allowing children to starve.
Bush calling his bluff saved 3 million kids from starvation.

To Stop the Swarm, Stop the Spawn

Blowflies breed maggots. If you could handle the truth, you'd know that most of those kids Dubai Dubya saved grew up to join ISIS.

YUP I have no problem believing they became ISIS recruits.

After all with the MSM and traitors like you and these people telling these youths how bad Gitmo was, how bad Abu Ghraib was, and as these traitors below
blowing way way out of proportion and the barbarian terrorists LOVING to have these traitors tell how bad the US military, our soldiers and America was!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost", Great news to the terrorists!
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” And the terrorists certainly made it out that ALL our troops killed civilians!
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." Wow! A Senator calling our troops terrorists!
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians," way to help recruit Obama!
This Harvard study to have increased violence by 10%...
THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

 

[healthmyths]

In addition, these same youths became ISIS because our former idiot Obama never knew the history of the USA military i.e. WE STILL HAVE 140,000 TROOPS IN
EUROPE/ASIA AFTER 70 YEARS!

No conquering military in HISTORY ever won a war and then withdrew ALL their troops!
WWII for example.
Most people never heard of these people as I hadn't till I did some RESEARCH!!!

Werwolf (pronounced [ˈveːɐ̯vɔlf], German for "werewolf") was a Nazi plan, which began development in 1944,[2] to create a resistance force which would operate behind enemy lines as the Allies advanced through Germany. However Werwolf's propaganda value far outweighed its actual achievements.
TIME magazine ran an article containing speculation that the Germans would try to prolong the war indefinitely by going underground after their defeat.[9] The January 27, 1945 issue of Collier's Weekly featured a detailed article by Major Edwin Lessner, stating that elite SS and Hitler Youth were being trained to attack Allied forces and opening with a 1944 quote from Joseph Goebbels: "The enemy (invading German territory) will be taken in the rear by the fanatical population, which will ceaselessly worry him, tie down strong forces and allow him no rest or exploitation of any possible success."[10]
Werwolf - Wikipedia

 

[BlindBoo]

Year is 2017, this thing is long settled, buddy. Time to move on at some point.

Pre-emptive WMD arguments for Iraq invasion were a complete bust as Bush himself long ago acknowledged. Saddam was bluffing to keep his neighbors in check, did not actually have an advanced nuclear program the war was sold on.

Doesn't alter FACT!
YES! Saddam was bluffing but Saddam denied allowing children to starve.
Bush calling his bluff saved 3 million kids from starvation.

To Stop the Swarm, Stop the Spawn

Blowflies breed maggots. If you could handle the truth, you'd know that most of those kids Dubai Dubya saved grew up to join ISIS.

YUP I have no problem believing they became ISIS recruits.

After all with the MSM and traitors like you and these people telling these youths how bad Gitmo was, how bad Abu Ghraib was, and as these traitors below
blowing way way out of proportion and the barbarian terrorists LOVING to have these traitors tell how bad the US military, our soldiers and America was!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost", Great news to the terrorists!
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” And the terrorists certainly made it out that ALL our troops killed civilians!
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." Wow! A Senator calling our troops terrorists!
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians," way to help recruit Obama!
This Harvard study to have increased violence by 10%...
THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

The Alt-Right, peddlers of pseudo-news can take credit for that effect. It's been proven that the terrorist used their technique of taking a few words out of context and lying about what was said.

Harry Reid said that unless the president changed course in Iraq the war is lost.

Murtha was talking about a specific case were civilians were murdered.

US troops were dragging families out in the middle of the night doing the job that the Iraqis themselves should be doing.

"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there," Obama said

The aid you give to the enemy is all yours.

 

[washamericom]

Year is 2017, this thing is long settled, buddy. Time to move on at some point.

Pre-emptive WMD arguments for Iraq invasion were a complete bust as Bush himself long ago acknowledged. Saddam was bluffing to keep his neighbors in check, did not actually have an advanced nuclear program the war was sold on.

Doesn't alter FACT!
YES! Saddam was bluffing but Saddam denied allowing children to starve.
Bush calling his bluff saved 3 million kids from starvation.

To Stop the Swarm, Stop the Spawn

Blowflies breed maggots. If you could handle the truth, you'd know that most of those kids Dubai Dubya saved grew up to join ISIS.

YUP I have no problem believing they became ISIS recruits.

After all with the MSM and traitors like you and these people telling these youths how bad Gitmo was, how bad Abu Ghraib was, and as these traitors below
blowing way way out of proportion and the barbarian terrorists LOVING to have these traitors tell how bad the US military, our soldiers and America was!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost", Great news to the terrorists!
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” And the terrorists certainly made it out that ALL our troops killed civilians!
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." Wow! A Senator calling our troops terrorists!
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians," way to help recruit Obama!
This Harvard study to have increased violence by 10%...
THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

The Alt-Right, peddlers of pseudo-news can take credit for that effect. It's been proven that the terrorist used their technique of taking a few words out of context and lying about what was said.

Harry Reid said that unless the president changed course in Iraq the war is lost.

Murtha was talking about a specific case were civilians were murdered.

US troops were dragging families out in the middle of the night doing the job that the Iraqis themselves should be doing.

"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there," Obama said

The aid you give to the enemy is all yours.

can you show me "unless the president changed course in Iraq" 'the war is lost'. cause that's a big difference, but not the way i remember it.





never mind, i found it, it was biden.

Biden said he didn't agree with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's recent statement that the war in Iraq is "lost."

"I know what he means," he said. "His frustration is overwhelming at this president's mishandling the war, and unless the president changes course, Harry's going to turn out to be right."