Why the "slam dunk" statement was made...

[rightwinger]

Your link

In October 2001, ABC News broadcast highly inflammatory and false reports linking Saddam to the anthrax attacks. Who was behind those claims, and why has ABC not retracted its stories?

 

[healthmyths]

Your link

In October 2001, ABC News broadcast highly inflammatory and false reports linking Saddam to the anthrax attacks. Who was behind those claims, and why has ABC not retracted its stories?

YES I KNOW!!! That was my point though!
Right after 9/11 all possibilities i.e. Saddam the source were considered!
But unlike YOU with the luxury of "HINDSIGHT"" most of us didn't know!
I for one wouldn't have been surprised if Saddam was behind the Anthrax attacks!
Yet most of you idiots that don't seem to have the humility to recognize right after 9/11 all bets were on Saddam.
After all this bastard had NO problem gassing his own people so why not the attack on 9/11 or the anthrax attacks!
But those of us who recognize that it is better to error on the side of safety state what is obvious... i.e. even though Saddam let 144,000 kids a year
starve because he wouldn't CERTIFY his WMDs destruction could NOT believe someone like Saddam would intentionally let 144,000 kids starve!

 

[rightwinger]

Your link

In October 2001, ABC News broadcast highly inflammatory and false reports linking Saddam to the anthrax attacks. Who was behind those claims, and why has ABC not retracted its stories?

YES I KNOW!!! That was my point though!
Right after 9/11 all possibilities i.e. Saddam the source were considered!
But unlike YOU with the luxury of "HINDSIGHT"" most of us didn't know!
I for one wouldn't have been surprised if Saddam was behind the Anthrax attacks!
Yet most of you idiots that don't seem to have the humility to recognize right after 9/11 all bets were on Saddam.
After all this bastard had NO problem gassing his own people so why not the attack on 9/11 or the anthrax attacks!
But those of us who recognize that it is better to error on the side of safety state what is obvious... i.e. even though Saddam let 144,000 kids a year
starve because he wouldn't CERTIFY his WMDs destruction could NOT believe someone like Saddam would intentionally let 144,000 kids starve!

After 9-11, the Bush administration was looking for ANY excuse to blame Iraq

 

[healthmyths]

Your link

In October 2001, ABC News broadcast highly inflammatory and false reports linking Saddam to the anthrax attacks. Who was behind those claims, and why has ABC not retracted its stories?

YES I KNOW!!! That was my point though!
Right after 9/11 all possibilities i.e. Saddam the source were considered!
But unlike YOU with the luxury of "HINDSIGHT"" most of us didn't know!
I for one wouldn't have been surprised if Saddam was behind the Anthrax attacks!
Yet most of you idiots that don't seem to have the humility to recognize right after 9/11 all bets were on Saddam.
After all this bastard had NO problem gassing his own people so why not the attack on 9/11 or the anthrax attacks!
But those of us who recognize that it is better to error on the side of safety state what is obvious... i.e. even though Saddam let 144,000 kids a year
starve because he wouldn't CERTIFY his WMDs destruction could NOT believe someone like Saddam would intentionally let 144,000 kids starve!

After 9-11, the Bush administration was looking for ANY excuse to blame Iraq

You have a right to an opinion. There is NO source to document that though.
Besides there were reasons to believe Saddam was behind 9/11, Anthrax attacks based on ALL the UN resolutions he ignored especially the
no-fly zone violations, the destruction of his OWN land... are you aware Scott Pelley called this a "Weapon of Mass Destruction"???
CBS Scott Pelley :
"It turns out Saddam Hussein did possess a weapon of mass destruction and he used it in a slaughter that few have heard of until now: after the Gulf War in 1991, the dictator spent untold millions on this weapon, designed to exterminate an ancient civilization called the "Ma'dan," also known as the "Marsh Arabs."
In a five-year project 90 percent of the marshes were drained - an area of more than 3,000 square miles.
"... the marsh dwellers were important elements in the uprising against Saddam Hussein’s regime. To end the rebellion, the regime implemented an intensive system of drainage and water diversion structures that desiccated over 90% of the marshes. The reed beds were also burned and poison introduced to the waters.
It is estimated that more than 500,000 were displaced, 95,000 of them to Iran, 300,000 internally displaced, and the remainder to other countries. By January 2003, the majority of the marshes were wastelands.
"As an engineer, I'm telling you, drying of the marshes is definitely not an easy task. It's a monumental engineering project," Alwash explained. "He put every piece of equipment available in Iraq under his control at the services of the projects needed to dry the marshes."
"Saddam was using water as a weapon?" Pelley asked.
"You know, the world was looking for weapons of mass destruction. And the evidence was right under its nose," Alwash.
Resurrecting Eden - 60 Minutes Videos - CBS News

 

[Tuatara]

Your link

In October 2001, ABC News broadcast highly inflammatory and false reports linking Saddam to the anthrax attacks. Who was behind those claims, and why has ABC not retracted its stories?

YES I KNOW!!! That was my point though!
Right after 9/11 all possibilities i.e. Saddam the source were considered!
But unlike YOU with the luxury of "HINDSIGHT"" most of us didn't know!
I for one wouldn't have been surprised if Saddam was behind the Anthrax attacks!
Yet most of you idiots that don't seem to have the humility to recognize right after 9/11 all bets were on Saddam.
After all this bastard had NO problem gassing his own people so why not the attack on 9/11 or the anthrax attacks!
But those of us who recognize that it is better to error on the side of safety state what is obvious... i.e. even though Saddam let 144,000 kids a year
starve because he wouldn't CERTIFY his WMDs destruction could NOT believe someone like Saddam would intentionally let 144,000 kids starve!

Not everyone supported the invasion. Some of us knew from the start that Bush & Co. were blowing smoke. Some of us were listening to the inspectors instead of hearing Bush's versions of botched reports. Some of us were able to distinguish truth from propaganda and outright lies. As soon as Bush made the comment about "terrorists are doing this because they hate freedom" then only an idiot would listen any further to what he had to say.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"We are now convinced Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction or active programs."
- President Bill Clinton, August 9th, 2000

Let's see a link to that, edtheliar?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bush and his administration did NOT take us to war on faulty intel.

The Bush administration claimed Saddam had nukes - the intel people did not tell them that.

The Bush administration claimed Saddam had ties to al Qaeda - the intel people did not tell them that.

Colin Powell went to the UN with 'evidence' that was entirely fabricated.

You're sure a lying ****.

And stupid to boot.

 

[Tuatara]

I urge any Bush supporters to watch this film. No End In Sight

 

[rightwinger]

Your link

In October 2001, ABC News broadcast highly inflammatory and false reports linking Saddam to the anthrax attacks. Who was behind those claims, and why has ABC not retracted its stories?

YES I KNOW!!! That was my point though!
Right after 9/11 all possibilities i.e. Saddam the source were considered!
But unlike YOU with the luxury of "HINDSIGHT"" most of us didn't know!
I for one wouldn't have been surprised if Saddam was behind the Anthrax attacks!
Yet most of you idiots that don't seem to have the humility to recognize right after 9/11 all bets were on Saddam.
After all this bastard had NO problem gassing his own people so why not the attack on 9/11 or the anthrax attacks!
But those of us who recognize that it is better to error on the side of safety state what is obvious... i.e. even though Saddam let 144,000 kids a year
starve because he wouldn't CERTIFY his WMDs destruction could NOT believe someone like Saddam would intentionally let 144,000 kids starve!

Not everyone supported the invasion. Some of us knew from the start that Bush & Co. were blowing smoke. Some of us were listening to the inspectors instead of hearing Bush's versions of botched reports. Some of us were able to distinguish truth from propaganda and outright lies. As soon as Bush made the comment about "terrorists are doing this because they hate freedom" then only an idiot would listen any further to what he had to say.

The very idea we needed to invade Iraq stunk from the beginning. Saddam had been contained for ten years and was less of a threat than ever. The idea we needed to invade...Right Now...made no sense

 

[Uncensored2008]

The very idea we needed to invade Iraq stunk from the beginning. Saddam had been contained for ten years and was less of a threat than ever. The idea we needed to invade...Right Now...made no sense

If he had been contained for ten years, why had Clinton bombed him 4 years earlier?

Oh, you're just lying again!

Carry on.

 

[rightwinger]

The very idea we needed to invade Iraq stunk from the beginning. Saddam had been contained for ten years and was less of a threat than ever. The idea we needed to invade...Right Now...made no sense

If he had been contained for ten years, why had Clinton bombed him 4 years earlier?

Oh, you're just lying again!

Carry on.

Bombing is not invasion and nation building

Bush Sr knew better
Clinton knew better

W did not

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bombing is not invasion and nation building

Bush Sr knew better
Clinton knew better

W did not

Irrelevant - you lied that Saddam had been "contained for 10 years."

 

[rightwinger]

Bombing is not invasion and nation building

Bush Sr knew better
Clinton knew better

W did not

Irrelevant - you lied that Saddam had been "contained for 10 years."

I didn't see him invade anyone ...had you?

 

[OKTexas]

Right, every credible intel agency in the world agreed, what a freaking conspiracy.

Yet, most of the world did not think the threat was worth invading Iraq for



.

Oh right, that's why more than a third of the worlds nations (60) participated. You pathetic aholes are so easy to prove wrong.

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/059/59-3-1/CMH_59-3-1.pdf

Oh yes.......the "Coalition of the Willing"

Willing to accept a U.S. payout to send a few support troops

They sent 150,000, is that a few, really?

And take out the British and you get what? Like 3000 of the "willing" working in logistics support roles

Have you ever been in the military, it's takes about 7 logistics people to keep 1 fighting man on the line, a war cannot be prosecuted without them. You're just showing your ignorance by trying to minimize their roll.

 

[rightwinger]

Yet, most of the world did not think the threat was worth invading Iraq for



.

Oh right, that's why more than a third of the worlds nations (60) participated. You pathetic aholes are so easy to prove wrong.

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/059/59-3-1/CMH_59-3-1.pdf

Oh yes.......the "Coalition of the Willing"

Willing to accept a U.S. payout to send a few support troops

They sent 150,000, is that a few, really?

And take out the British and you get what? Like 3000 of the "willing" working in logistics support roles

Have you ever been in the military, it's takes about 7 logistics people to keep 1 fighting man on the line, a war cannot be prosecuted without them. You're just showing your ignorance by trying to minimize their roll.

I am well aware of that

I am also aware that the 1 "fighting man" was provided by the US or the Brits.....NOT the rest of the coalition of the willing

 

[OKTexas]

Oh right, that's why more than a third of the worlds nations (60) participated. You pathetic aholes are so easy to prove wrong.

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/059/59-3-1/CMH_59-3-1.pdf

Oh yes.......the "Coalition of the Willing"

Willing to accept a U.S. payout to send a few support troops

They sent 150,000, is that a few, really?

And take out the British and you get what? Like 3000 of the "willing" working in logistics support roles

Have you ever been in the military, it's takes about 7 logistics people to keep 1 fighting man on the line, a war cannot be prosecuted without them. You're just showing your ignorance by trying to minimize their roll.

I am well aware of that

I am also aware that the 1 "fighting man" was provided by the US or the Brits.....NOT the rest of the coalition of the willing

Go away little boy, I see your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by facts. I'm done.

 

[rightwinger]

Oh yes.......the "Coalition of the Willing"

Willing to accept a U.S. payout to send a few support troops

They sent 150,000, is that a few, really?

And take out the British and you get what? Like 3000 of the "willing" working in logistics support roles

Have you ever been in the military, it's takes about 7 logistics people to keep 1 fighting man on the line, a war cannot be prosecuted without them. You're just showing your ignorance by trying to minimize their roll.

I am well aware of that

I am also aware that the 1 "fighting man" was provided by the US or the Brits.....NOT the rest of the coalition of the willing

Go away little boy, I see your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by facts. I'm done.

The "facts" are that the Bush "Coalition of the willing" was a farce

It was comprised of the US and UK with other nations paid to send token support

The coalition lacked NATO support, Japan, Canada and Mexico. Nations you would normally expect to support us

 

[healthmyths]

They sent 150,000, is that a few, really?

And take out the British and you get what? Like 3000 of the "willing" working in logistics support roles

Have you ever been in the military, it's takes about 7 logistics people to keep 1 fighting man on the line, a war cannot be prosecuted without them. You're just showing your ignorance by trying to minimize their roll.

I am well aware of that

I am also aware that the 1 "fighting man" was provided by the US or the Brits.....NOT the rest of the coalition of the willing

Go away little boy, I see your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by facts. I'm done.

The "facts" are that the Bush "Coalition of the willing" was a farce

It was comprised of the US and UK with other nations paid to send token support

The coalition lacked NATO support, Japan, Canada and Mexico. Nations you would normally expect to support us

About a hundred Canadian exchange officers, on exchange to American units, participated in the invasion of Iraq.[2] It has been reported that Canadian troops in the region numbered fewer than only three other participating countries.[3] The War also affected Canada in the form of protests and counter-protests related to the conflict, and United States Military members who sought refuge in the country after deserting their posts to avoid deployment to Iraq—but who, unlike as with the Vietnam War, were mostly returned by Canada forthwith to the United States.
Canada and the Iraq War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[healthmyths]

They sent 150,000, is that a few, really?

And take out the British and you get what? Like 3000 of the "willing" working in logistics support roles

Have you ever been in the military, it's takes about 7 logistics people to keep 1 fighting man on the line, a war cannot be prosecuted without them. You're just showing your ignorance by trying to minimize their roll.

I am well aware of that

I am also aware that the 1 "fighting man" was provided by the US or the Brits.....NOT the rest of the coalition of the willing

Go away little boy, I see your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by facts. I'm done.

The "facts" are that the Bush "Coalition of the willing" was a farce

It was comprised of the US and UK with other nations paid to send token support

The coalition lacked NATO support, Japan, Canada and Mexico. Nations you would normally expect to support us

Japan took its biggest stride yet from half a century of pacifism yesterday when parliament approved the dispatch of troops to support the US in Iraq.

The prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, overrode opposition, a no-confidence motion and a late-night filibuster to ensure the passage of the legislation, which paves the way for the country's biggest military deployment since the second world war.
End of an era as Japan enters Iraq World news The Guardian

 

[healthmyths]

AND MEXICO???? Tied helping in Iraq with the following.........
The United States and Mexico find themselves at an impasse as well, with little sign of progress or compromise on Mr. Fox's dream of an accord on migration. The extent to which that standoff may affect Mexico's position on Iraq is unclear. It is clearly cooling the relationship between the two nations.

Mr. Fox seeks some legal rights for more than three million undocumented Mexican immigrants in the United States, along with more visas and expanded guest-worker programs. He says implementation of those goals will benefit both the security and the economy of the United States.
Mexico Tells Bush It Won t Support Iraq Resolution U.S. Favors - NYTimes.com