14872096
The facts Bubba are that Hillary exposed classified information illegally in the first place. The facts are that she and Obama never ordered assets to attempt to reach our ambassador in Libya then lied about the cause of the attack to the American people. The facts are that Hillary was instrumental in ISIS taking over Libya. The facts are that Hillary is now under yet another investigation, this time by Obama's IRS. Hillary Clinton is dangerous and has already placed American classified information at risk and did absolutely nothing to aid those folks directly under her command.
none of those points are facts. Just partisan hackery. You want facts? There were no WMDs in Iraq. Now there are thousands of dead and wounded US service people. Thanks Dumbya!
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
The link reports this:
"The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added."
Not the most lethal weapons ever devised that Trumpo (now GOP President) says the Bush Admin lied about to start a stupid war,
So I didn't go back and read through all the prior posts, but I am going to give my perspective on this.
1. Whether or not the WMDs found were new, old, good, bad, usable, un-useable.... none of that matters.
Why? Because the UN required as part of the cease fire with Iraq, that Saddam all them to verify that all the WMDs they had were destroyed.
Were they all destroyed? No. Stop...... end of story. Saddam was required to provide proof, and allow inspections to prove, that he had destroyed all of his chemical weapons. He did not do this, and we found stores of chemical weapons.
So pointing out what we found wasn't new, or whatever... does not matter. He was required to provide proof that he destroyed all of his chemical weapon stock piles. He refused, and we found of those stock piles.
2. We already know for a fact, that Russian military convoys left Iraq, and went into Syria. Those military convoys likely had those chemical weapons, and some of them were used in the Syrian civil war.
3. Even if we assume that there in fact, were no WMDs. Let's pretend for a moment that this is an absolute fact, that there were no WMDs.
That still doesn't change the fact that Saddam kicked out the inspectors, who were tasked with documenting the proof that there were no WMDs. That's not Bush's fault. That's Saddam's fault, and he got what he deserved for doing it.
Further, Bush can't act as president, by assuming all the information he is given is false. Every single intelligence report, said that likely Saddam was pursuing WMDs. Intelligence from around the world suggested this as well.
If Bush had been warned by every single intelligence report, and from intelligence reports from around the world, that terrorists were going to hijack planes and fly them into the twin towers and the pentagon, and Bush had dismissed every single warning as false and unproven... and then 9/11 happened, you, and those like you, would have been demanding he be impeached for dereliction of duty.
Equally, if he had dismissed all the reports about Saddam as being false, and then a chemical bomb traced back to Iraq wiped out the New York sub-way, you would also demand he be impeached.
It's only because he was given information at the time, that said Saddam was working on WMDs, and then we didn't find it, that you are now dishonestly saying he lied.
And the irony of the whole thing, is that Saddam absolutely must have had Chemical weapons, because he used them. The idea that he didn't have WMDs, is a joke. Saddam used chemical weapons. That's a flat out fact.
Again... if Saddam really did disarm, then he should have allowed the UN inspectors to see all the military installations, and provide the proof he destroyed all his chemical weapons, and none of this would have happened. This is 100% on Saddam. All of it.
