Why does the left continue to HUMILIATE themselves on the WMD issue?

[kiwiman127]

I gave Rott the link to the Duelfer Report but of course as he wants to be the right's version of truthmatters, he didn't read it.
So here's a link. Now go ahead a prove this report wrong or go home.
Global Cop: Duelfer Report (PDF)
And of course GWB admitted there were no WMD's. So exactly what would ever convince the clowns that there weren't WMDs? Absolutely nothing.

 

[Mertex]

Watching you people have a meltdown in the face of FACTS never ceases to be hilarious. By your (lack of) "logic" - any nuclear weapon is not a WMD unless is detonates (because an undetonated nuclear weapon wouldn't even make "a couple of soldiers sick")...

No matter how the right tries to spin it to save face, the fact is there were no WMDs found in Iraq, none. So, if you find it hilarious, it's only because you're trying to keep from being embarrassed, that your leader lied to us into a war that was unnecessary. That over 4000 American soldiers died for no good reason is not hilarious, but whatever floats your boat. I bet you're making a big deal over the 4 men that died in Benghazi, though.

CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq
WASHINGTON — In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
CIA?s final report: No WMD found in Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News

So just to be clear - the dozens of links I posted from former Navy Seals (who have no political agenda) on the ground in Iraq as well as from left-wing sources like MSNBC, are all liars, but the C.I.A. is honest?!?

Game. Set. Match, stupid....

Ha,ha, are you so lacking in self-esteem that you have to post in bold and BIG letters - as if we can't read it if it isn't? Sounds a tad immature, maybe you need to grow up some?

Whatever may have been found that you claim you have verified with links, obviously is not sufficient to have warranted a war against Iraq. That's what everyone has been trying to get across to you, but you are so desperate to justify the invasion that you keep insisting that there were WMDs.

I suggest you quit embarrassing yourself, because even Bush has admitted there were no WMDs. You and a few uninformed souls continue to believe that there were WMDs, maybe to justify the loss of 4000 Americans, but the truth is, it was a waste of time and money and certainly not worthy of that many Americans losing their lives over it.



As for how you dispel your friends’ notions that Iraq really did have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons when President Bush no longer makes such claims himself, we suggest ridicule. If that doesn’t work, you may be out of luck.
According to the ISG final report, the search for WMDs actually began during the invasion phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom. A military task force was deployed to investigate suspected WMD sites on the theory that the Iraqi military might otherwise employ those weapons against coalition troops. After the invasion, the ISG was established to conduct "a more systematic collection of evidence to build an understanding of Iraqi WMD programs." In other words, the ISG did not simply look for WMDs. The group also looked at Iraq’s WMD capabilities and examined evidence relating to past WMD stockpiles.

During its investigation, the ISG reported that "[a] total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components." These isolated discoveries received significant media attention, and it’s likely that these overhyped reports contributed to your friends’ beliefs that Iraq really did possess WMDs. But the finds were rare, and the ISG concluded that they were not part of a significant stockpile of weapons. Indeed, after nearly two years of investigation, the ISG concluded that:

Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons. The ISG concluded that contrary to what most of the world had believed, Iraq had abandoned attempts to produce WMDs. In his congressional testimony, the head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, admitted, "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq.
FactCheck.org : No WMDs in Iraq

 

[Mertex]

Your lack of civility and the fact that you have to resort to insults.

There is no way to wrestle a pig unless you dive into the mud.

No, if you have proof of your stance, you don't have to be uncivil. Name-calling and insulting the other person is just a sign that you are becoming angry because you can't support your position.

You uneducated, uninformed, parasites set the tone for political debates over 100 years ago. You're just pissed that I'm able to not only own you on the battlefield of ideas, but also on your libtard field of insults, threats, violence, and uncivilized neanderthals...

Ha,ha, seems to me that you are the one that is pissed. The one that resorts to name-calling and insults is not doing it because they are defeating anyone, but instead just feels totally defeated and angry. Immature and sophomoric, and you are in the minority.

Everyone with a lick of sense has accepted the fact that Bush/Cheney lied and there were no WMDs.

 

[Mertex]

Why do you to scream that Bush and Cheney are "liars" who "lied us into Iraq" because you can't stomach a little fight, but cite them as the ultimate trustworthy source when their answer fits your agenda?

Because WMD was their excuse for invading Iraq - then they admitted none were found.

In other words - they finally admitted they lied. It ain't rocket science...

Who was lying when this was said:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program."

It was of course – President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Now do you know who passed this and other lies on to Bush. Why it was Clinton's appointed head of the CIA George Tenet.

– President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

– Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

– Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton.

– (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

– Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"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 th! e means of delivering them."

I hope you are smart enough to know all the above were said before Bush was elected.

So again who was lying? I think you have fallen for the democratic talking points hook, line and sinker.

It's hilarious that you are trying to assign the blame to Clinton. Clinton may have believed that Saddam had WMDS, but he sure didn't start a bogus war. And, Bush pressured the CIA to go along with his and Cheney's claims, because he wanted to start a war, so it wasn't as if Bush was acting on Clinton's word.

You are pathetic.

 

[P@triot]

Sorry champ, they never found any WMD production facilities or huge stockpiles that the Bush administration claimed Iraq had.

You have any links to posts where I claimed absolutely no chemical weapons of any kind were ever found?

I'd also like to say I'm not the one screaming like a little girlie-girl am I?

See the two words highlighted above - they are new to BlindBoo (and the libtards) narrative. As always, when proven wrong, they move the goal posts. They are now trying to distance themselves from 10 years of crying like little bitches "but there were no WMD's found" to "there were no PRODUCTION facilities found"

All you can do is try to put words in my mouth but you can't prove it can you? You have to hide behind your own lies little puppy dog.

Put words in your mouth?!? Those are your words!!! I didn't alter your post - I just highlighted the key words that shows you're changing your story.

 

[P@triot]

Whatever may have been found that you claim you have verified with links

So you're admitting that you're jumping in on a dispute without having read the links?!?

Might I suggest actually reading everything in it's entirety before commenting next time?

 

[P@triot]

Ha,ha, are you so lacking in self-esteem that you have to post in bold and BIG letters - as if we can't read it if it isn't? Sounds a tad immature, maybe you need to grow up some?

So your official position is that someone who actually uses features designed by the cite creators is "lacking in self-esteem" and "a tad immature"?!?

If you have a problem with the features on this website, I suggest you take out your mental issues on the people who designed this site (hint: it was not me).

This is the kind of buffoon we are dealing with here folks - Mertex here cries like a little bitch when someone utilizes this site to it's full extent...

 

[jgarden]

..... It is a chilling fact that thousands of chemical weapons have been uncovered in Iraq. These weapons have been used by Al Qaeda against coalition and NATO forces on dozens of occasions. This has been confirmed by countless sources, most recently in the released WikiLeaks cables.

A roadside bomb thought to contain deadly sarin nerve agent exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday. It was believed to be the first confirmed discovery of any of the banned weapons that the United States cited in making its case for the Iraq war.

Sarin-loaded bomb explodes in Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News

So why haven't the American people been told of the stock-piled caches of chemical WMD's uncovered in Iraq or of the chemical weapon attacks by Al Qaeda?

Two former weapons inspectors — Hans Blix and David Kay — said the shell was likely a stray weapon that had been scavenged by militants and did not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles of such weapons.

Kimmitt said he believed that insurgents who planted the explosive didn’t know it contained the nerve agent.

Sarin-loaded bomb explodes in Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News
***************************************************************************************************
Rottweiler's own source refutes virtually every assertion that was made.

1. this shell was "a stray weapon," not one of "thousands of chemical weapons have been uncovered in Iraq."

2. the "insurgents who planted the explosive didn’t know it contained the nerve agent," they were not "used by Al Qaeda against coalition and NATO forces on dozens of occasions."

 

[jgarden]

Document 52: Department of State Cable from George P. Shultz to the United States Embassy in Lebanon [et al.]. "Department Press Briefing, March 30, 1984," March 31, 1984.

The State Department announces it has imposed foreign policy controls on Iran and Iraq for exports of chemical weapons precursors. It responds to questions from the press about U.S. policy regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and a department spokesperson says Iraq's chemical weapons use will not change U.S. interest in pursuing closer U.S.-Iraq relations.

Source: Declassified under the Freedom of Information Act

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/#docs

Why does the left continue to HUMILIATE themselves on the WMD issue?

According to declassified US State Department documents, the American government was well aware that Saddam Hussein was using "chemical" weapons not only against the Iranians, but also against his own citizens, the Kurds.

Despite this use of WMD which was later used to justify the Iraq War, it was the stated policy of the Reagan Administration in 1984 that "Iraq's chemical weapons use will not change U.S. interest in pursuing closer U.S.-Iraq relations."

It should also be noted that it was George Bush's father, GHW Bush, who was serving as Vice President at that time!

In light of these facts, perhaps "Rottweiler" would care to reconsider his position as to which side of the political spectrum has "HUMILIATE(D) themselves!"

 

[Mertex]

Whatever may have been found that you claim you have verified with links

So you're admitting that you're jumping in on a dispute without having read the links?!?

When the facts are laid out, anything that goes against the facts is just fiction. I don't mind reading fiction, but I don't pretend that it's real.

Might I suggest actually reading everything in it's entirety before commenting next time?

Have you read any of the articles provided you? If you had read any of them, you would know to quit printing fiction and trying to pass it off as facts.

 

[Mertex]

Ha,ha, are you so lacking in self-esteem that you have to post in bold and BIG letters - as if we can't read it if it isn't? Sounds a tad immature, maybe you need to grow up some?

So your official position is that someone who actually uses features designed by the cite creators is "lacking in self-esteem" and "a tad immature"?!?

Using the features does not render you immature, mis-using the features does. Apparently you don't know the difference.

If you have a problem with the features on this website, I suggest you take out your mental issues on the people who designed this site (hint: it was not me).

I don't have a problem with the features, you seem to have a problem with common sense. You don't need to use big size fonts to get your point across, unless you are a 12 year old who likes to scream to be heard.

This is the kind of buffoon we are dealing with here folks - Mertex here cries like a little bitch when someone utilizes this site to it's full extent...

What we're dealing with here, is Rottweiler, an immature buffoon who thinks that by typing in size 6 font, and bolding it, will make his fiction turn to fact.

 

[Faun]

That's fine, except neural damage is tough to repair in the human body, and many of our soldiers return home not the same happy-go-lucky guys they once were, may be irritable or even a little confused. Our guys are exposed to an awfully lot of toxic fuels and metals in war. We had agent orange in Viet Nam and Gulf War Syndrome in which our guys had odd symptoms showing up after they got back home. The enemy doesn't tell us when it does certain modifications to their firepower that could cause health problems that may not show up for weeks, months, or even years. I don't think Gulf War Syndrome was accidental or mass hysteria.

Can you name a single soldier who suffered permanent damage or even death from any of these "WMD?"

I was only aware of those two, and fortunately, they were not seriously harmed.

Chemical Weapons are WMD's you fuck'n idiot. Period. This is a fact that is not disputed anywhere in the world except by a few desperate libtards such as you.

Because our well trained and prepared military personnel stabbed themselves with a syringe containing a counteractive substance to prevent their own deaths does NOT cease to make a chemical weapon a WMD.

As always, you've been owned...

Nah, not only is it you who has been owned -- but you were owned by the very president you defend ...

"Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq -- was -- 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, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. ~ George Bush, 8.21.2006​

G'head .... tell me again how Bush only said that because he was up for re-election!

 

[freedombecki]

Can you name a single soldier who suffered permanent damage or even death from any of these "WMD?"

I was only aware of those two, and fortunately, they were not seriously harmed.

Chemical Weapons are WMD's you fuck'n idiot. Period. This is a fact that is not disputed anywhere in the world except by a few desperate libtards such as you.

Because our well trained and prepared military personnel stabbed themselves with a syringe containing a counteractive substance to prevent their own deaths does NOT cease to make a chemical weapon a WMD.

As always, you've been owned...

Nah, not only is it you who has been owned -- but you were owned by the very president you defend ...

"Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq -- was -- 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, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. ~ George Bush, 8.21.2006
​

G'head .... tell me again how Bush only said that because he was up for re-election!

It's all Booooooooooooooooooooosh's fault!

 

[P@triot]

And now we can add the NY Times to the list of hard-core left-wing libs who now acknowledge that WMD's were in fact located in Iraq...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/w...ght-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html

 

[Wry Catcher]

And now we can add the NY Times to the list of hard-core left-wing libs who now acknowledge that WMD's were in fact located in Iraq...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/w...ght-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html

A couple of things stand out, and both of them cast the Bush Administration poorly. First, the weapons in the link hadn't been produced during the Clinton administration but years earlier, and presented no direct threat to the United States Homeland (hence, the mushroom cloud fear mongering was a dog that couldn't hunt), and the find, at least two years into the occupation of mostly obsolete WMD's, is damn good evidence that the presentation to the UN by Powell, and the Sunday Morning Dog and Pony Show by Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney and was all bull shit. Bull shit that cost the lives of over 4,500 young Americans, tens of thousand more with life long wound and a massive debt, in a war of choice.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And now we can add the NY Times to the list of hard-core left-wing libs who now acknowledge that WMD's were in fact located in Iraq...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/w...ght-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html

A couple of things stand out, and both of them cast the Bush Administration poorly. First, the weapons in the link hadn't been produced during the Clinton administration but years earlier, and presented no direct threat to the United States Homeland (hence, the mushroom cloud fear mongering was a dog that couldn't hunt), and the find, at least two years into the occupation of mostly obsolete WMD's, is damn good evidence that the presentation to the UN by Powell, and the Sunday Morning Dog and Pony Show by Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney and was all bull shit. Bull shit that cost the lives of over 4,500 young Americans, tens of thousand more with life long wound and a massive debt, in a war of choice.

What's just as disturbing is that many on the right advocate to send American ground forces back to Iraq so thousands more Americans can needlessly die.

 

[occupied]

Why are you republicans suddenly trying to polish the turd that was the Bush presidency? Could it be because another one waits in the wings to further fuck us without lube or a reach-around? Nothing can make us forget what happened, nothing, and we will continue to remind you assholes every time you bring out the legacy polish for Dubya.

 

[Liminal]

And now we can add the NY Times to the list of hard-core left-wing libs who now acknowledge that WMD's were in fact located in Iraq...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/w...ght-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html

I'm still waiting for the nuclear weapons, we were promised nuclear weapons. Where are the nuclear weapons?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Post 735 continued:

What has been the cost-benefit of the Iraq occupation? And what are the on going cost-deficits? An honest person knows the former is zilch, and the latter is the on going violence in the ME, Africa and Europe.

Still, Bush is defended and Obama is blamed - some days, watching the news is like reading a novel by Kafka.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Only the OP and those on the right who agree with him have been humiliated.