Who Is Right About WMDs in Iraq, the Right or Trump?

[Dschrute3]

Your concession is accepted, jackass.

I posted his comment and it was the opposite of what you said. Stop playing word games.

You are simply lying.

If you could quote Blix saying that there was no WMD in Iraq you would have done it, jackass. But you cannot do it because that is not what he said.

You got caught flat out lying to the forum.

Come on now, Bush and Cheney saw an easy oil-grab. The US 'No-Fly Zones', which were illegal, neutralized any real Iraq threat.Iraq barely had a military at that point. And the US sanctions alone, killed an estimated 1 Million Iraqis. Most were elderly and children. Iraq was absolutely no threat to the US.

Bush and Cheney used 9/11 as a pretext for their invasion. It was all based on lies. And it turned out to be a horrific blunder. All it achieved, was massive bloody slaughter and the Shiites seizing control of the country. And of course the Shiites are aligned with Shiite Iran. It was a blunder of epic proportions. Americans really should think twice before getting sucked into supporting another brutal war based on evil lies.

Are you going for the "most lies in one post" record?

For instance, you claimed that enforcing the "no-fly zones" was illegal. Yet you cannot cite any law that was broken. WTF?

Would it be legal for any country to impose 'No-Fly Zones' on the US? The US breaks the law all the time. It just doesn't get held accountable. It's the old 'Might makes Right' scenario. The US does whatever the hell it wants. And if you don't like it, what are you gonna do about it? It completely owns the International Court System. Only other people and nations stand trial for war crimes. It's a rigged set-up for sure. When's the last time you saw an American, Brit, or other allies get arrested and stand trial in an International Court?

And to hell with Bush and Cheney. They lied us into that bloody costly blunder. Iraq was no thereat to the US. It was a weak defenseless nation at the time of the invasion. Cheney just saw it as an easy oil-grab. He even used 9/11 as a pretext to start the war. He's a very bad person. And all they've achieved is, flushing $Billions in Tax Dollars down the toilet, cause the deaths of Thousands of innocent civilians, allow a massive Islamic Terrorist invasion, and handing the country over to the Shiites who are aligned with Shiite Iran. It was an epic bloody blunder. Cheney and others should have been arrested and prosecuted. It was an awful crime against humanity.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Muhammed, post: 1709335

Sarin is a WMD

Bush said in a globally broadcast news conference about WMD that it turned out Saddam Hussein didn't have them. If Sarin were the 'most lethal weapons ever devised being hidden from UN inspectors in March 2003 when Bush said war was necessary, Bush would be the first to back you up.

Bush does not back you up. In fact what Bush says makes you a liar.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Rustic, post: 1709248

The UN "Inspectors" were absolutely incompetent and molasses slow… If Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction he had ages to hide them most likely in Syria.

You nonsense dies not take Bush's March 17, 2003 lie away.

Bush claimed war was necessary because Bush had intelligence at that time that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapon ever devised.

If that were true and Iraqis were moving all of them to Syria, Bush's intelligence would have know what WMD and where it was being hidden.

If it all was being moved and Bush did know about it that is more proof Bush was lying.

He had no intelligence. At that point having such intelligence would be impossible.


Bush agreed to resumption of inspections under Resolution 1441 which contained no timeline for the UN inspectors to complete their work.

There were no WMD / it would take time to be without a doubt sure about that before lifting sanctions.

Bush took two years trying to find them. Killing and destroying Iraq along the way which still goes on fourteen years later.

Talk about slow. Not only slow but extreme stupid and dangerous. That's your Bush not the inspectors.

 

[HaShev]

And Bush didn't start anything there was technically no end to the war Saddam started when he broke the peace agreement.

UNSC Resolution 1441 was a new peace agreement giving Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to comply with all previous Resolutions. That was November 2002.

1441 was the governing Resolution under which resumed inspections were taking place.

The war was over during 1441 and Bush wrote and accepted that condition.

The Bush not Saddam Hussein broke the peace and all chances for resolving the WMD issue peacefully.

That is all public fact. Everyone can know that if they want to take their head out of Bush's lying ass.

You must color outside your coloring book then, because if I remember correctly Saddam went outside the red line no fly zones and did not comply to the peace agreements. In your world Saddam and his even more evil son UDay will be Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazadar part 2.0 who's Baath party ambitions are what you see and hate in Isis, but would be 5-10x worse being protected by nations.
You do not understand the Middle east because you fail to study the past to understand repeating history emulating.

 

[xyz]

Here was the Right's position on WMDs in Iraq, right up to the present day:

Fox News 2002: Iraq Likely Has Weapons of Mass Destruction

Fox News 2003: The Connection Between 9/11 and Iraq



July 2004: UN Confirms: WMDs Smuggled Out of Iraq

Fox News 2006: Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq


September 2012: 63% of Republicans STILL Think Iraq Had WMDs

There were...Syria has them now.

fuck yeah.

the wmd were transported to syria.

What's this???? MORE EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS

GulfLINK Home

December 2012: Will Saddam’s WMDs Fall into the Hands of Al Qaeda?


June 2014:
Saddam’s WMDs: The Left’s Iraq Lies Exposed

The recent turmoil in Iraq brought on by the rise of the Sunni extremist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has ironically struck a blow to the American Left’s endlessly repeated narrative that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq prior to the war.

Indeed.. you're expecting Zombie cattle-like creatures who believe they come from monkey's to be able to read and actually comprehend .. Not going to happen..

October 2013: Flashback: Chemical Weapons In Syria Include WMDs Shipped From Iraq



October 2014: Remember folks when you read this ...THERE WERE NEVER NEVER any WMDs!!!

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

We've heard rumors of this, but now we have the proof.

Bush didn't lie after all folks.

January 2015: Saddam's WMDs Went To Syria, Then Lebanon....


August 2015: ISIS Using WMDs. Where Did They Get Them? HMMMMM????



So we see the Right claimed Saddam had WMDs right up until 2015. This milestone is very important to note.



Now, some mainstream Democrats also believed Saddam had WMDs. Their opinions were formed by the information fed to them by the Bush Administration.

But on the extreme left wing fringes of the Democratic spectrum, there were those who said that it was all lies. They held mass protests all over the country.

So here is the far left liberal Democrat position on WMDs in Iraq:

Oh no! "Negged"? Whatever shall I do?

Bush lied to invade Iraq. Bush lied to invade Iraq.

Say it out loud to yourself. "Bush lied to invade Iraq."

Welcome to Earth.

Back then, a very famous registered New York limousine liberal Democrat also voiced his far left position on the fake news channel CNN:


Trump: "I was surprised that she (Nancy Pelosi) didn't do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush. It was almost -- it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which, personally, I think would have been a wonderful thing."

Blitzer: "Impeaching him?"

Trump: "Absolutely, for the war, for the war."

Blitzer: "Because of the conduct of the war."

Trump: "Well, he lied. He got us into the war with lies. And, I mean, look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant. And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. And, yet, Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true."


Trump repeated his far left belief during the 2016 campaign. And the Chumps just sat there and took it. That's why you no longer hear them claiming there were WMDs in Iraq. Because retards vote for anyone who has an R after their name. Even one who was a far left D.

That's how stupid they are.

So you think "should have taken the oil"?

 

[my2¢]

Ii think it was the usual case of an administration believing what it wanted to believe. One such example comes from an article published back in 2004 about an Iraqi defector code-named "Curveball":

David Kay, who resigned in January as head of the CIA-led group created to find illicit weapons in Iraq, said that of all the intelligence failures in Iraq, the case of Curveball is particularly troubling.

"This is the one that's damning," he said. "This is the one that has the potential for causing the largest havoc in the sense that it really looks like a lack of due diligence and care in going forward."

Kay said in an interview that the defector "was absolutely at the heart of a matter of intense interest to us." But Curveball turned out to be an "out-and-out fabricator," he added.

Last May, the CIA announced it had found two of the suspect trucks in northern Iraq, but the agency later backtracked. However, in the absence of any other evidence to support its prewar claims, the Bush administration has continued to cling to the possibility that bio-warfare trucks might still exist.
​

WMD claims tied to discredited informant | CJOnline.com

 

[mudwhistle]

Here was the Right's position on WMDs in Iraq, right up to the present day:

Fox News 2002: Iraq Likely Has Weapons of Mass Destruction

Fox News 2003: The Connection Between 9/11 and Iraq



July 2004: UN Confirms: WMDs Smuggled Out of Iraq

Fox News 2006: Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq


September 2012: 63% of Republicans STILL Think Iraq Had WMDs

There were...Syria has them now.

fuck yeah.

the wmd were transported to syria.

What's this???? MORE EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS

GulfLINK Home

December 2012: Will Saddam’s WMDs Fall into the Hands of Al Qaeda?


June 2014:
Saddam’s WMDs: The Left’s Iraq Lies Exposed

The recent turmoil in Iraq brought on by the rise of the Sunni extremist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has ironically struck a blow to the American Left’s endlessly repeated narrative that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq prior to the war.

Indeed.. you're expecting Zombie cattle-like creatures who believe they come from monkey's to be able to read and actually comprehend .. Not going to happen..

October 2013: Flashback: Chemical Weapons In Syria Include WMDs Shipped From Iraq



October 2014: Remember folks when you read this ...THERE WERE NEVER NEVER any WMDs!!!

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

We've heard rumors of this, but now we have the proof.

Bush didn't lie after all folks.

January 2015: Saddam's WMDs Went To Syria, Then Lebanon....


August 2015: ISIS Using WMDs. Where Did They Get Them? HMMMMM????



So we see the Right claimed Saddam had WMDs right up until 2015. This milestone is very important to note.



Now, some mainstream Democrats also believed Saddam had WMDs. Their opinions were formed by the information fed to them by the Bush Administration.

But on the extreme left wing fringes of the Democratic spectrum, there were those who said that it was all lies. They held mass protests all over the country.

So here is the far left liberal Democrat position on WMDs in Iraq:

Oh no! "Negged"? Whatever shall I do?

Bush lied to invade Iraq. Bush lied to invade Iraq.

Say it out loud to yourself. "Bush lied to invade Iraq."

Welcome to Earth.

Back then, a very famous registered New York limousine liberal Democrat also voiced his far left position on the fake news channel CNN:


Trump: "I was surprised that she (Nancy Pelosi) didn't do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush. It was almost -- it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which, personally, I think would have been a wonderful thing."

Blitzer: "Impeaching him?"

Trump: "Absolutely, for the war, for the war."

Blitzer: "Because of the conduct of the war."

Trump: "Well, he lied. He got us into the war with lies. And, I mean, look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant. And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. And, yet, Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true."


Trump repeated his far left belief during the 2016 campaign. And the Chumps just sat there and took it. That's why you no longer hear them claiming there were WMDs in Iraq. Because retards vote for anyone who has an R after their name. Even one who was a far left D.

That's how stupid they are.

Yo g, i am honored to be quoted in your OP. But the quote is obviously me being sarcastic.63% of Republicans STILL Think Iraq Had WMDs

Probably because the media reported they had them.
Problem was, the liberal media reported it, then went back to claiming no evidence was even found.
That way folks like yourself actually think nothing was found at all. Most likely because somebody needed to rub your nose in it to get you to notice it.

 

[cnelsen]

Thank goodness for the compassion of Americans. Because if Saddam were still in power today, nearly 3.6 million more children would have starved!

Oh my God, are you insane? (((We)) put sanctions on Iraq, and the suffering is THEIR fault? What kind of sick and calloused monster are you? You should move to Afghanistan. You'd go far with the Taliban. I can just see you busting into some young family's home on a tip the wife secretly was a Christian. Sure enough, there is a crucifix hidden behind a baseboard. In a rage you grab her by the hair, put a knife to her throat and demand she renounce Christ or die. She refuses, so, in front of her husband and young children, you slit her throat. After, when you are outside washing off your knife in the family's well, you notice some of the newer recruits looking a little ashen. "It's her fault," you snarl malevolently. "All she had to do was renounce Christ."

 

[healthmyths]

Thank goodness for the compassion of Americans. Because if Saddam were still in power today, nearly 3.6 million more children would have starved!

Oh my God, are you insane? (((We)) put sanctions on Iraq, and the suffering is THEIR fault? What kind of sick and calloused monster are you? You should move to Afghanistan. You'd go far with the Taliban. I can just see you busting into some young family's home on a tip the wife secretly was a Christian. Sure enough, there is a crucifix hidden behind a baseboard. In a rage you grab her by the hair, put a knife to her throat and demand she renounce Christ or die. She refuses, so, in front of her husband and young children, you slit her throat. After, when you are outside washing off your knife in the family's well, you notice some of the newer recruits looking a little ashen. "It's her fault," you snarl malevolently. "All she had to do was renounce Christ."

AND YOU definitely are a nut case!
All Saddam had to do was admit... there were NO WMDS! And since he didn't we as any logical human compassionate person would say... If he is willing to sacrifice
his children... by NOT admitting he doesn't have WMDs... then he has them!

BUT you again BLAMING the US/UN for wanting to overthrow a bastard that you obviously adored and emulated you wanted Saddam still in power and YOU want
3.6 million kids to starve. How heartless you are!

MY goodness you defending Saddam! Unbelievable!

 

[cnelsen]

All Saddam had to do was admit... there were NO WMDS!

All she had to do was renounce Christ, monster.

 

[LaDexter]

MY goodness you defending Saddam!

Saddam was not a US problem at all. He was not even a UN problem since he was in compliance with UN mandates.

You are a perfectly hypocritical sub human traitor. The only thing you care about is ISRAEL, the country with the most UN violations by far.

 

[healthmyths]

Ii think it was the usual case of an administration believing what it wanted to believe. One such example comes from an article published back in 2004 about an Iraqi defector code-named "Curveball":

David Kay, who resigned in January as head of the CIA-led group created to find illicit weapons in Iraq, said that of all the intelligence failures in Iraq, the case of Curveball is particularly troubling.

"This is the one that's damning," he said. "This is the one that has the potential for causing the largest havoc in the sense that it really looks like a lack of due diligence and care in going forward."

Kay said in an interview that the defector "was absolutely at the heart of a matter of intense interest to us." But Curveball turned out to be an "out-and-out fabricator," he added.

Last May, the CIA announced it had found two of the suspect trucks in northern Iraq, but the agency later backtracked. However, in the absence of any other evidence to support its prewar claims, the Bush administration has continued to cling to the possibility that bio-warfare trucks might still exist.
​

WMD claims tied to discredited informant | CJOnline.com

Again... I'm asking you as a supposedly logical sane person. Would you continue to sacrifice 144,000 children a year simply by NOT admitting there were no WMDs?
Do you understand exactly what happened? Saddam was given dozens of chances to comply with UN Sanctions among which was simply admitting THERE were NO WMDs. But he wouldn't! And WHY???

PIRO:It was very important for him to project that, because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq.


PELLEY:He believed that he couldn’t survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?

PIRO: Absolutely.

Look closely at this exchange. Piro isn’t claiming that this is something Saddam actually told him. The idea that Saddam wanted the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction in order to deter Iran came not from Saddam himself, but rather was cooked up several years ago by U.S. intelligence officials–conveniently exonerating the intelligence agencies from having gotten the WMD story so wrong. “Of course we thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction–he made us think it!”
Saddam’s ‘Secret’
And to keep this pretext up, Saddam was OK with 144,000 children starving per year!
Most conscientious people would say... "he must have WMDs why else would he allow 144,000 children to starve"!
NOW forward to 2017.... and if Saddam were still in power... over 3.6 million children would have starved or something else would have occurred!

 

[LaDexter]

Saddam was given dozens of chances to comply with UN Sanctions among which was simply admitting THERE were NO WMDs. But he wouldn't! And WHY???

#1, that's complete BS, he was in compliance

#2 you seem to care about violations of UN mandates. The country of ISRAEL is the world leader in UN violations and is the only country on the planet outside of its UN defined border. If you wanted to whack Saddam over "UN" issues but you don't want to push Israel back by force into their 1948 border, you are 100% hypocritical and your use of "UN" violations to justify Iraq is complete and total BULLSHIT

 

[healthmyths]

MY goodness you defending Saddam!

Saddam was not a US problem at all. He was not even a UN problem since he was in compliance with UN mandates.

You are a perfectly hypocritical sub human traitor. The only thing you care about is ISRAEL, the country with the most UN violations by far.

WHERE in the hell does Israel come into this??? What is it you are smoking?
Saddam WAS NOT in compliance!
Prove to me where he was in compliance because HERE a Democrat SoS arguing Saddam's removal thus saving 3.6 million children from starving!

On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her
"We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it." Albright wrote later that Saddam Hussein, not the sanctions, was to blame.
She criticized Stahl's segment as "amount[ing] to Iraqi propaganda"; said that her question was a loaded question;[63][64] wrote "I had fallen into a trap and said something I did not mean";[65] and regretted coming "across as cold-blooded and cruel".[66] The segment won an Emmy Award.[45][67] Albright's "non-denial" was taken by sanctions opponents as confirmation of a high number of sanctions related casualties.
Sanctions against Iraq - Wikipedia

 

[healthmyths]

Saddam was given dozens of chances to comply with UN Sanctions among which was simply admitting THERE were NO WMDs. But he wouldn't! And WHY???

#1, that's complete BS, he was in compliance

#2 you seem to care about violations of UN mandates. The country of ISRAEL is the world leader in UN violations and is the only country on the planet outside of its UN defined border. If you wanted to whack Saddam over "UN" issues but you don't want to push Israel back by force into their 1948 border, you are 100% hypocritical and your use of "UN" violations to justify Iraq is complete and total BULLSHIT

NOT one link proving your wild ass statements! If you are 100% right prove it with links!
#1... Here is proof Saddam WAS NOT in compliance you dummy!
Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:
Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions
Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

• Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
  
  
  
  
  
• Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
  
  

UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991

• Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
  
  

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991

• Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
  
  
  
  
  
• Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
  
  

UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991

• "Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.
  
  

UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991

• "Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
  
  
  
  
  
• "Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.
  
  

UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991

• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
  
  

UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994

• "Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.
  
  

UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996

• Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
  
  

UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996

• "Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
  
  

UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997

• "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
  
  

UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997

• "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
  
  

UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997

• "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
  
  
  
  
  
• Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
  
  

UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998

• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
  
  

UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998

• "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
  
  

UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998

• "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.
  
  

UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999

• Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
  
  
  
  
  
• Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

#2.. What crap about Israel! Prove it!

 

[LaDexter]

thus saving 3.6 million children from starving!

Your endless repetition of that BS doesn't cause anyone to believe you.

You either care about UN mandates or you don't. You don't because you do not apply them equally - you give a free pass to Israel - why?

On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her

Ms. Albright's credibility on the issue of Iraq is absolute ZERO. Not that you care....

The desire to lie to start a US war with Iraq existed before W took office, in the Clinton National Security (for Israel only) Team...

Gen. Hugh Shelton: Clinton Official Suggested Letting U.S. Plane Be Shot Down To Provoke War With Iraq | The Huffington Post


"At one of my very first breakfasts, while Berger and Cohen were engaged in a sidebar discussion down at one end of the table and Tenet and Richardson were preoccupied in another, one of the Cabinet members present leaned over to me and said, “Hugh, I know I shouldn’t even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event — something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough — and slow enough — so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?”"

"If you eliminate Berger, Cohen, Tenet, and Richardson and look at the Cabinet members that remain, you’re sort of left where Elliott is: with Madeleine Albright."



So do not quote that treasonous bitch again...

 

[Doc1]

Here was the Right's position on WMDs in Iraq, right up to the present day:

Fox News 2002: Iraq Likely Has Weapons of Mass Destruction

Fox News 2003: The Connection Between 9/11 and Iraq



July 2004: UN Confirms: WMDs Smuggled Out of Iraq

Fox News 2006: Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq


September 2012: 63% of Republicans STILL Think Iraq Had WMDs

There were...Syria has them now.

fuck yeah.

the wmd were transported to syria.

What's this???? MORE EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS

GulfLINK Home

December 2012: Will Saddam’s WMDs Fall into the Hands of Al Qaeda?


June 2014:
Saddam’s WMDs: The Left’s Iraq Lies Exposed

The recent turmoil in Iraq brought on by the rise of the Sunni extremist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has ironically struck a blow to the American Left’s endlessly repeated narrative that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq prior to the war.

Indeed.. you're expecting Zombie cattle-like creatures who believe they come from monkey's to be able to read and actually comprehend .. Not going to happen..

October 2013: Flashback: Chemical Weapons In Syria Include WMDs Shipped From Iraq



October 2014: Remember folks when you read this ...THERE WERE NEVER NEVER any WMDs!!!

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

We've heard rumors of this, but now we have the proof.

Bush didn't lie after all folks.

January 2015: Saddam's WMDs Went To Syria, Then Lebanon....


August 2015: ISIS Using WMDs. Where Did They Get Them? HMMMMM????



So we see the Right claimed Saddam had WMDs right up until 2015. This milestone is very important to note.



Now, some mainstream Democrats also believed Saddam had WMDs. Their opinions were formed by the information fed to them by the Bush Administration.

But on the extreme left wing fringes of the Democratic spectrum, there were those who said that it was all lies. They held mass protests all over the country.

So here is the far left liberal Democrat position on WMDs in Iraq:

Oh no! "Negged"? Whatever shall I do?

Bush lied to invade Iraq. Bush lied to invade Iraq.

Say it out loud to yourself. "Bush lied to invade Iraq."

Welcome to Earth.

Back then, a very famous registered New York limousine liberal Democrat also voiced his far left position on the fake news channel CNN:


Trump: "I was surprised that she (Nancy Pelosi) didn't do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush. It was almost -- it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which, personally, I think would have been a wonderful thing."

Blitzer: "Impeaching him?"

Trump: "Absolutely, for the war, for the war."

Blitzer: "Because of the conduct of the war."

Trump: "Well, he lied. He got us into the war with lies. And, I mean, look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant. And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. And, yet, Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true."


Trump repeated his far left belief during the 2016 campaign. And the Chumps just sat there and took it. That's why you no longer hear them claiming there were WMDs in Iraq. Because retards vote for anyone who has an R after their name. Even one who was a far left D.

That's how stupid they are.

"Now, some mainstream Democrats also believed Saddam had WMDs. Their opinions were formed by the information fed to them by the Bush Administration."

This is a lie.

 

[LaDexter]

"mainstream" Democrats = those 100% for US wars in the ME to help Israel = Feinstein, Schumer, Lieberman, and Waxman

 

[cnelsen]

• We have no business in the Middle East. Period.
• Our military does not exist for the sake of Israel. Period.
• Any Jew in America who supports this endless carnage we unleash over there because he thinks it's good for Israel is disloyal, and in some cases, treasonous. Period.
• Iraq was no threat to the United States and, therefore, our attack was unjustified. Period.
• Your disgusting attempt to use the deaths of children to cloak your blood lust in a humanitarian disguise is despicable, Period.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

They blamed Bush for everything even though they had majority and were part of that same gov't they moaned about.

Lol what? The GOP controlled everything for 6 of Bush's 8 years. That's why shit hit the fan.

Thats right and then Dems took over in 2006 and screwed up in four years and got kicked out.