Trump: Bush lied about reason for invading Iraq

[Si modo]

This is a pathetic myth, and I'm surprised that Trump repeated it. Even Oliver Stone admits that Bush was furious when it became clear that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that Bush demanded to know why the CIA and the DoD claimed there were WMDs.

Now, I certainly believe that certain Bush administration officials and some folks in the CIA and the DoD knew or suspected that the WMD case was either doubtful or false, but the evidence is clear that Bush sincerely believed the WMD case and was very upset when it turned out to be false.

But WMDs were found in Iraq.

 

[rightwinger]

Looks like a lot of people said something that wasn't true concerning WMDs.

WMDs were found in Iraq and they are active munitions.

You have been asked to provide a link to an objective source that confirms operational WMD's were found and have failed to do so. You provided links to American soldiers being injured when they found abandoned weapons. Operational is the key word. What was found were old abandoned weapons that could not be used a designed and had been buried unsafely for over 10 years before being found.
You were asked to provide you favorite and best most objectionable example of WMD's being found in Iraq. All you have shown is that some irresponsible Iraqi's buried some artillery and mortar rounds over a decade before the Iraqi war, the coalition forces stumbled onto some of them and were injured when the deteriorating weapons were uncovered.

Read the thread...links are there.

K? Thx.

No they aren't. You posted links that confirm what I said, not what you are claiming. They weapons in those links in many cases dated back to the 80's. They were degraded and caused American casualties because they were improperly handled.
You are trying to promote some nonsense that even the Bush administration did not attempt to promote.

I posted two of many links showing WMDS were found in Iraq. Thousands of them.

Their age is irrelevant as they are viable - able to injure and kill.

So, once again - thousands of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and, those weapons are viable WMDs.

That is what I have posted and that is fact.

Anything you don't like about it is your problem.

Junk unworthy of an invasion

 

[rightwinger]

This is a pathetic myth, and I'm surprised that Trump repeated it. Even Oliver Stone admits that Bush was furious when it became clear that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that Bush demanded to know why the CIA and the DoD claimed there were WMDs.

Now, I certainly believe that certain Bush administration officials and some folks in the CIA and the DoD knew or suspected that the WMD case was either doubtful or false, but the evidence is clear that Bush sincerely believed the WMD case and was very upset when it turned out to be false.

Bush invaded without a net

He assumed, once he invaded, they would find something....anything to justify his blunder

 

[mikegriffith1]

This is a pathetic myth, and I'm surprised that Trump repeated it. Even Oliver Stone admits that Bush was furious when it became clear that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that Bush demanded to know why the CIA and the DoD claimed there were WMDs.

Now, I certainly believe that certain Bush administration officials and some folks in the CIA and the DoD knew or suspected that the WMD case was either doubtful or false, but the evidence is clear that Bush sincerely believed the WMD case and was very upset when it turned out to be false.

But WMDs were found in Iraq.

Technically, yes, but not the type or amount that had been claimed was there. The nuke stuff was fiction, and certain people around Bush knew or suspected as much, and some folks in the CIA and DoD had to know that the "evidence" was flimsy at best.

 

[Freewill]

Trump says George W. Bush ‘lied’ to get U.S. into Iraq

I agree w/ him

Any Trump- supporters care to chime-in, agreeing? I don't expect this thread to have many responses given all Trump-supporters on this forum are rw'ers

I am glad Trump now has you as a supporter. I would have thought him thinking Obama born in Kenya would make you not support him. Very open minded of you.

As long as all the democrats have to offer is the lying Mrs. Bosnia Clinton and socialist senior citizen Sanders, Trump is looking pretty good. He could actually shoot someone and be a better candidate, depends on whom he shot.

 

[rightwinger]

As the Republican Party continues to consume itself

Cracks in the once solid armor that Bush was a hero of 9-11 and that Iraq was a justified response

 

[Si modo]

This is a pathetic myth, and I'm surprised that Trump repeated it. Even Oliver Stone admits that Bush was furious when it became clear that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that Bush demanded to know why the CIA and the DoD claimed there were WMDs.

Now, I certainly believe that certain Bush administration officials and some folks in the CIA and the DoD knew or suspected that the WMD case was either doubtful or false, but the evidence is clear that Bush sincerely believed the WMD case and was very upset when it turned out to be false.

But WMDs were found in Iraq.

Technically, yes, but not the type or amount that had been claimed was there.

Chemical weapons were found - mustard and sarin (and VX).

Over 5000, just that amount found was released with the last few years.

Considering the toxicity of one microliter, 5K found can kill a shitload of persons.

 

[Freewill]

Might it be pointed out that the Iraq war ended a number of years ago with a free Iraq?

Might it also be pointed out that we are sending more troops to Afghanistan years after Obama had his very unsuccessful surge? In Iraq the enemy was defeated quickly with fewer losses then the left ever predicted. Now women get to vote and the Butcher of Baghdad has been eliminated, not by us and special forces, but by the free Iraqi people.

How many on the left are willing to hold lying Mrs. Bosnia Clinton to her vote for war? Or her very own words that were the same as GWB? She even had insider information from Bill, assuming she was talking to him at the time. Bush is gone, let's talk about Mrs. Bosnia Clinton and her vote.

 

[Freewill]

This is a pathetic myth, and I'm surprised that Trump repeated it. Even Oliver Stone admits that Bush was furious when it became clear that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that Bush demanded to know why the CIA and the DoD claimed there were WMDs.

Now, I certainly believe that certain Bush administration officials and some folks in the CIA and the DoD knew or suspected that the WMD case was either doubtful or false, but the evidence is clear that Bush sincerely believed the WMD case and was very upset when it turned out to be false.

But WMDs were found in Iraq.

Technically, yes, but not the type or amount that had been claimed was there.

Chemical weapons were found - mustard and sarin.

Over 5000, just that amount found was released with the last few years.

Considering the toxicity of one microliter, 5K found can kill a shitload of persons.

These weapons were used against the Kurds, and probably the Iranians, the left know this they are just too invested in their meme that they can not now admit the truth. Not that they are lying, they just know so much that isn't so.

 

[Camp]

Looks like a lot of people said something that wasn't true concerning WMDs.

WMDs were found in Iraq and they are active munitions.

You have been asked to provide a link to an objective source that confirms operational WMD's were found and have failed to do so. You provided links to American soldiers being injured when they found abandoned weapons. Operational is the key word. What was found were old abandoned weapons that could not be used a designed and had been buried unsafely for over 10 years before being found.
You were asked to provide you favorite and best most objectionable example of WMD's being found in Iraq. All you have shown is that some irresponsible Iraqi's buried some artillery and mortar rounds over a decade before the Iraqi war, the coalition forces stumbled onto some of them and were injured when the deteriorating weapons were uncovered.

Read the thread...links are there.

K? Thx.

No they aren't. You posted links that confirm what I said, not what you are claiming. They weapons in those links in many cases dated back to the 80's. They were degraded and caused American casualties because they were improperly handled.
You are trying to promote some nonsense that even the Bush administration did not attempt to promote.

I posted two of many links showing WMDS were found in Iraq. Thousands of them.

Their age is irrelevant as they are viable - able to injure and kill.

So, once again - thousands of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and, those weapons are viable WMDs.

That is what I have posted and that is fact.

Anything you don't like about it is your problem.

The problem is with your credibility. You are making a wild claim that was debunked a decade ago and using a source that actually disagrees with your claim that these weapons you keep talking about were viable operational weapons. You just keep calling them viable and ignoring the operational definition. You can find ingredients to make dirty bombs just about anywhere. Some ingredients were found in Iraq. Some can also be found in hardware stores and even grocery stores.
You claim to be chemist and expert on chemical weapons. If that were true you would know that it is not the actual ingredients that present the greatest danger, it is the weaponization that causes the dispersal of those ingredients. An exposure that causes illness and injury months or years after the exposure is not the result of an operational weapon.

 

[Si modo]

Looks like a lot of people said something that wasn't true concerning WMDs.

WMDs were found in Iraq and they are active munitions.

You have been asked to provide a link to an objective source that confirms operational WMD's were found and have failed to do so. You provided links to American soldiers being injured when they found abandoned weapons. Operational is the key word. What was found were old abandoned weapons that could not be used a designed and had been buried unsafely for over 10 years before being found.
You were asked to provide you favorite and best most objectionable example of WMD's being found in Iraq. All you have shown is that some irresponsible Iraqi's buried some artillery and mortar rounds over a decade before the Iraqi war, the coalition forces stumbled onto some of them and were injured when the deteriorating weapons were uncovered.

Read the thread...links are there.

K? Thx.

No they aren't. You posted links that confirm what I said, not what you are claiming. They weapons in those links in many cases dated back to the 80's. They were degraded and caused American casualties because they were improperly handled.
You are trying to promote some nonsense that even the Bush administration did not attempt to promote.

I posted two of many links showing WMDS were found in Iraq. Thousands of them.

Their age is irrelevant as they are viable - able to injure and kill.

So, once again - thousands of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and, those weapons are viable WMDs.

That is what I have posted and that is fact.

Anything you don't like about it is your problem.

The problem is with your credibility. You are making a wild claim that was debunked a decade ago and using a source that actually disagrees with your claim that these weapons you keep talking about were viable operational weapons. You just keep calling them viable and ignoring the operational definition. You can find ingredients to make dirty bombs just about anywhere. Some ingredients were found in Iraq. Some can also be found in hardware stores and even grocery stores.
You claim to be chemist and expert on chemical weapons. If that were true you would know that it is not the actual ingredients that present the greatest danger, it is the weaponization that causes the dispersal of those ingredients. An exposure that causes illness and injury months or years after the exposure is not the result of an operational weapon.

Good grief.

It doesn't matter if they are weaponized or not, at least according to the CWC, unlike BW.

The compounds kill, they are a CW, whether in a shell or a vial I'm sorry that doesn't fit with what you want to believe, but science isn't about beliefs.

I don't know if you're willfully ignorant or a hack. I guess I don't care.

 

[rightwinger]

How can millions of Republicans support a candidate who believes Bush was responsible for 9-11 and blundered in Iraq?

Looks like the party is crumbling and no longer believing the lies they have been told for twelve years

 

[Freewill]

Looks like a lot of people said something that wasn't true concerning WMDs.

WMDs were found in Iraq and they are active munitions.

You have been asked to provide a link to an objective source that confirms operational WMD's were found and have failed to do so. You provided links to American soldiers being injured when they found abandoned weapons. Operational is the key word. What was found were old abandoned weapons that could not be used a designed and had been buried unsafely for over 10 years before being found.
You were asked to provide you favorite and best most objectionable example of WMD's being found in Iraq. All you have shown is that some irresponsible Iraqi's buried some artillery and mortar rounds over a decade before the Iraqi war, the coalition forces stumbled onto some of them and were injured when the deteriorating weapons were uncovered.

Read the thread...links are there.

K? Thx.

No they aren't. You posted links that confirm what I said, not what you are claiming. They weapons in those links in many cases dated back to the 80's. They were degraded and caused American casualties because they were improperly handled.
You are trying to promote some nonsense that even the Bush administration did not attempt to promote.

I posted two of many links showing WMDS were found in Iraq. Thousands of them.

Their age is irrelevant as they are viable - able to injure and kill.

So, once again - thousands of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and, those weapons are viable WMDs.

That is what I have posted and that is fact.

Anything you don't like about it is your problem.

The problem is with your credibility. You are making a wild claim that was debunked a decade ago and using a source that actually disagrees with your claim that these weapons you keep talking about were viable operational weapons. You just keep calling them viable and ignoring the operational definition. You can find ingredients to make dirty bombs just about anywhere. Some ingredients were found in Iraq. Some can also be found in hardware stores and even grocery stores.
You claim to be chemist and expert on chemical weapons. If that were true you would know that it is not the actual ingredients that present the greatest danger, it is the weaponization that causes the dispersal of those ingredients. An exposure that causes illness and injury months or years after the exposure is not the result of an operational weapon.

Saddam Hussein's Weapons Of Mass Destruction | Gunning For Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS

Halabja chemical attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Si modo]

Good question.

Better question: How can anyone support any of the shit-for-candidates?

 

[Freewill]

How can millions of Republicans support a candidate who believes Bush was responsible for 9-11 and blundered in Iraq?

Looks like the party is crumbling and no longer believing the lies they have been told for twelve years

It's his opinion he is welcome to his opinion. The real reason is that the democrats have given no one a choice.

The real question becomes, how can the left support Mrs. Bosnia Clinton who said the same things as GWB and actually voted for war and voted to fund that war? How? Hypocrites?

Tell me how she can outright lie, as in the following link, and yet the left wing can't come up with someone a least a little bit younger and a lot more honest?

 

[Freewill]

Clearly the worse thing to happen to the troops the day Mrs. Bosnia Clinton visited, was that they were subjected to her singing.

 

[Camp]

You have been asked to provide a link to an objective source that confirms operational WMD's were found and have failed to do so. You provided links to American soldiers being injured when they found abandoned weapons. Operational is the key word. What was found were old abandoned weapons that could not be used a designed and had been buried unsafely for over 10 years before being found.
You were asked to provide you favorite and best most objectionable example of WMD's being found in Iraq. All you have shown is that some irresponsible Iraqi's buried some artillery and mortar rounds over a decade before the Iraqi war, the coalition forces stumbled onto some of them and were injured when the deteriorating weapons were uncovered.

Read the thread...links are there.

K? Thx.

No they aren't. You posted links that confirm what I said, not what you are claiming. They weapons in those links in many cases dated back to the 80's. They were degraded and caused American casualties because they were improperly handled.
You are trying to promote some nonsense that even the Bush administration did not attempt to promote.

I posted two of many links showing WMDS were found in Iraq. Thousands of them.

Their age is irrelevant as they are viable - able to injure and kill.

So, once again - thousands of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and, those weapons are viable WMDs.

That is what I have posted and that is fact.

Anything you don't like about it is your problem.

The problem is with your credibility. You are making a wild claim that was debunked a decade ago and using a source that actually disagrees with your claim that these weapons you keep talking about were viable operational weapons. You just keep calling them viable and ignoring the operational definition. You can find ingredients to make dirty bombs just about anywhere. Some ingredients were found in Iraq. Some can also be found in hardware stores and even grocery stores.
You claim to be chemist and expert on chemical weapons. If that were true you would know that it is not the actual ingredients that present the greatest danger, it is the weaponization that causes the dispersal of those ingredients. An exposure that causes illness and injury months or years after the exposure is not the result of an operational weapon.

Saddam Hussein's Weapons Of Mass Destruction | Gunning For Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS

Halabja chemical attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one argues that Saddam had weapons in the 80's, and used them. The debate was whether he had operational weapons in 2003 that could be turned over to the terrorist like al Qaeda. Remember, Bush had made the statement in his State of the Union Address that indicated Saddam was giving "aid and protection to terrorist, including al Qaeda". Cheney and others further promoted this idea of collusion. The fear, of course, was that Saddam would supply operational WMD's to terrorist, maybe even al Qaeda. It turned out he no longer had those kinds of WMD's available. What he had was decaying junk he didn't even know about. Crap that had been hidden, forgotten and left to rot and decay.

 

[Si modo]

Read the thread...links are there.

K? Thx.

No they aren't. You posted links that confirm what I said, not what you are claiming. They weapons in those links in many cases dated back to the 80's. They were degraded and caused American casualties because they were improperly handled.
You are trying to promote some nonsense that even the Bush administration did not attempt to promote.

I posted two of many links showing WMDS were found in Iraq. Thousands of them.

Their age is irrelevant as they are viable - able to injure and kill.

So, once again - thousands of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and, those weapons are viable WMDs.

That is what I have posted and that is fact.

Anything you don't like about it is your problem.

The problem is with your credibility. You are making a wild claim that was debunked a decade ago and using a source that actually disagrees with your claim that these weapons you keep talking about were viable operational weapons. You just keep calling them viable and ignoring the operational definition. You can find ingredients to make dirty bombs just about anywhere. Some ingredients were found in Iraq. Some can also be found in hardware stores and even grocery stores.
You claim to be chemist and expert on chemical weapons. If that were true you would know that it is not the actual ingredients that present the greatest danger, it is the weaponization that causes the dispersal of those ingredients. An exposure that causes illness and injury months or years after the exposure is not the result of an operational weapon.

Saddam Hussein's Weapons Of Mass Destruction | Gunning For Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS

Halabja chemical attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one argues that Saddam had weapons in the 80's, and used them. The debate was whether he had operational weapons in 2003 that could be turned over to the terrorist like al Qaeda. Remember, Bush had made the statement in his State of the Union Address that indicated Saddam was giving "aid and protection to terrorist, including al Qaeda". Cheney and others further promoted this idea of collusion. The fear, of course, was that Saddam would supply operational WMD's to terrorist, maybe even al Qaeda. It turned out he no longer had those kinds of WMD's available. What he had was decaying junk he didn't even know about. Crap that had been hidden, forgotten and left to rot and decay.

Iraq had viable chemical weapons in 2003 and after.

 

[Freewill]

Good question.

Better question: How can anyone support any of the shit-for-candidates?

Sadly, it is all we got. I would love to see a Ronald Reagan riding to the rescue.

 

[Freewill]

Read the thread...links are there.

K? Thx.

No they aren't. You posted links that confirm what I said, not what you are claiming. They weapons in those links in many cases dated back to the 80's. They were degraded and caused American casualties because they were improperly handled.
You are trying to promote some nonsense that even the Bush administration did not attempt to promote.

I posted two of many links showing WMDS were found in Iraq. Thousands of them.

Their age is irrelevant as they are viable - able to injure and kill.

So, once again - thousands of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and, those weapons are viable WMDs.

That is what I have posted and that is fact.

Anything you don't like about it is your problem.

The problem is with your credibility. You are making a wild claim that was debunked a decade ago and using a source that actually disagrees with your claim that these weapons you keep talking about were viable operational weapons. You just keep calling them viable and ignoring the operational definition. You can find ingredients to make dirty bombs just about anywhere. Some ingredients were found in Iraq. Some can also be found in hardware stores and even grocery stores.
You claim to be chemist and expert on chemical weapons. If that were true you would know that it is not the actual ingredients that present the greatest danger, it is the weaponization that causes the dispersal of those ingredients. An exposure that causes illness and injury months or years after the exposure is not the result of an operational weapon.

Saddam Hussein's Weapons Of Mass Destruction | Gunning For Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS

Halabja chemical attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one argues that Saddam had weapons in the 80's, and used them. The debate was whether he had operational weapons in 2003 that could be turned over to the terrorist like al Qaeda. Remember, Bush had made the statement in his State of the Union Address that indicated Saddam was giving "aid and protection to terrorist, including al Qaeda". Cheney and others further promoted this idea of collusion. The fear, of course, was that Saddam would supply operational WMD's to terrorist, maybe even al Qaeda. It turned out he no longer had those kinds of WMD's available. What he had was decaying junk he didn't even know about. Crap that had been hidden, forgotten and left to rot and decay.

From the link provided:

At the end of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein and his elite military units were still in power and in possession of huge stockpiles of deadly weapons. In April 1991, the U.N. Security Council created UNSCOM, a special commission to find and dismantle this arsenal. The U.N. imposed economic sanctions on Iraq that would be enforced until the country eliminated all nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capability.

Two agencies were charged with the task. UNSCOM would uncover and destroy Iraq's biological- and chemical-weapons and ballistic-missile programs; the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was charged with uncovering and dismantling Iraq's clandestine nuclear program.

From 1991 to 1998 UNSCOM and IAEA carried out numerous inspections in Iraq, but with varying degrees of success.

For the first few years, Iraqi officials failed to disclose much of their special weapons programs to the inspectors. In 1995, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law Kamel Hussein defected. He had been in charge of the bioweapons program and revealed to UNSCOM that there was a vast arsenal of weapons they had failed to uncover, including biological weapons, and described how the Iraqis were hiding them. This was a breakthrough for the inspection teams, and they continued their work until 1998, when Iraq blocked further access and expelled UNSCOM.

What follows is a summary of what IAEA and UNSCOM had found in Iraq, up until 1998.