Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?

[freedombecki]

No lefty talking point, just stone cold fact.

The fabled WMDs did not exist, or the admin would have told God, angels, and all witnesses.

No such release was ever made.

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
WHAT DO YOU CALL THIS?
THIS IS FROM THE DOD WHILE GWB WAS THE PRESIDENT IN 2006
THIS WAS MADE IN THE SENATE, NOT THE EMPRE STATE BUILDING

Another example of misinformation from the apologists. The threat Bush used was from nuclear weapons and that's the lie he used to justify invasion, not some mustard gas that Blix was in the process of finding when Bush stopped him from his UN mandated job to illegally invade.

That's not the truth. You know how I know it's not the truth?

It's because you have zip links to any source links disproving it. Sources that could disprove it woud be at centcom.gov., and the date would be prior to 2006 and after 2003, when our military men found the weapons, loaded with sarin and other harsh gases, until 2006, When two Senators found out about the reports and made them public (see my post above).

 

[JRK]

I love how the apologist try to use the UN and Blix to justify their invasion of Iraq.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan



No weapons of mass destruction, no UN resolution to invade, no tie to 9/11, cooked and outright fabricated 'intel' from the Bush crew; an epic fail and yet there are still apologist who try to justify it.

Fox really is bad news for America.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

APLOLOGIST?
WHAT PART OF DENIAL DO YOU LIVE IN?
FROM1/23/2003 just weeks before we invade
NOT BUSH, NOT FROM BLAIR


Iraq has not yet come to genuinely accept disarmament, according to Hans Blix, the United Nations's chief weapons inspector.Iraq has co-operated with his team on providing access but it needed to go further, Mr Blix told the UN Security Council.

He said: "It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide co-operation on process, notably access.

"A similar decision is indispensable to provide co-operation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion, through the peaceful process of inspection, and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course."

Touching on the question of how much time inspectors need, he said he shure taken from Jews'01 Sep 2011(Telegraph News)
A man stoned for gathering sticks02 Sep 2011(Telegraph News)
King Arthur's round table may have been found by archaeologists in Scotland26 Aug 2011(Telegraph News)

Blix's first report following the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq last November.

Of the declaration of weapons made by Iraq under UN resolution 1441, he said: "Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration does not seem to contain any new material."

Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".

(500+ OF THESE MUNITIONS WERE FOUND LATER)

Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.

He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said. He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.

Mr Blix added that Iraq has refused to co-operate with a request from UN weapons inspectors regarding flights of U-2 spy planes for aerial imagery and surveillance.

(WHY

Mr Blix, who is charged with overseeing the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles, was accompanied by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Mr ElBaradei said that his inspectors had found no evidence that Iraq had revived its weapons programme after it was destroyed following the Gulf War.

But he said that inspectors needed more time to provide "credible assurance" that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.

He also urged Iraq to provide more information about the pre-1991 weapons programme.

John Negroponte, the United States ambassador to the UN, said that nothing Mr Blix and Mr ElBaradei had said indicated that Iraq had disarmed. He said: "Iraq is back to business as usual."

X Share & bookmark
Delicious Facebook Google Messenger Reddit Twitter Digg Fark LinkedIn Google Buzz StumbleUpon Y! Buzz What are these? Share: Share
inShare0http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1420179/Blix-weapons-and-anthrax-still-unaccounted-for.html
Telegraph
News
External Links
Unmovic
IAEA
UN Resolution 1441
10 Downing Street
Iraq - Foreign and Commonwealth Office
White House

BLIX, SADDAM, NOT BUSH
NOT THE CIA
BLIX CHANGING THIS AT A LATER DATE MAKE YOU AND BLIX WHAT?

I don't know why you keep repeating the same thing over again, Blix didn't provide justification for the invasion of Iraq, neither did the UN.

No one is doubting that Saddam was a 'bad guy', did you have another point to make?

But he said that inspectors needed more time to provide "credible assurance" that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.

But Bush refused to let them finish their UN mandate and invaded unilaterally and illegally. Just one of many points you include in your posts but refuse to accept.

If those statements had nothing to do with the invasion then explin to me why they would not?
this was not the CIA
there was no hidden agenda here
It was the UNs place in life to assure the world Saddam had done what he said he would do
GWB after 9-11 told him and the UN either clean it up or we would

Blix told the world weeks before we invaded Iraq, after years of sanctions,Saddam nor the UN had cleaned it up
you think this speech had no impact on the invasion 8 weeks later?
And what was illegal?

there where munitions found that met the WMD criteria
the senate and the house approved the removing Saddam by force by policy in 1998 and by mandate in 2002

WHAT WAS ILLEGAL?

 

[Nic_Driver]

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
WHAT DO YOU CALL THIS?
THIS IS FROM THE DOD WHILE GWB WAS THE PRESIDENT IN 2006
THIS WAS MADE IN THE SENATE, NOT THE EMPRE STATE BUILDING

Another example of misinformation from the apologists. The threat Bush used was from nuclear weapons and that's the lie he used to justify invasion, not some mustard gas that Blix was in the process of finding when Bush stopped him from his UN mandated job to illegally invade.

That's not the truth. You know how I know it's not the truth?

It's because you have zip links to any source links disproving it. Sources that could disprove it woud be at centcom.gov., and the date would be prior to 2006 and after 2003, when our military men found the weapons, loaded with sarin and other harsh gases, until 2006, When two Senators found out about the reports and made them public (see my post above).

I can't have a debate with a crazy person.

Good luck to you freedombecki. Perhaps your issue is your 12 years old but other than that, you seriously need professional help.

 

[Nic_Driver]

APLOLOGIST?
WHAT PART OF DENIAL DO YOU LIVE IN?
FROM1/23/2003 just weeks before we invade
NOT BUSH, NOT FROM BLAIR


Iraq has not yet come to genuinely accept disarmament, according to Hans Blix, the United Nations's chief weapons inspector.Iraq has co-operated with his team on providing access but it needed to go further, Mr Blix told the UN Security Council.

He said: "It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide co-operation on process, notably access.

"A similar decision is indispensable to provide co-operation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion, through the peaceful process of inspection, and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course."

Touching on the question of how much time inspectors need, he said he shure taken from Jews'01 Sep 2011(Telegraph News)
A man stoned for gathering sticks02 Sep 2011(Telegraph News)
King Arthur's round table may have been found by archaeologists in Scotland26 Aug 2011(Telegraph News)

Blix's first report following the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq last November.

Of the declaration of weapons made by Iraq under UN resolution 1441, he said: "Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration does not seem to contain any new material."

Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".

(500+ OF THESE MUNITIONS WERE FOUND LATER)

Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.

He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said. He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.

Mr Blix added that Iraq has refused to co-operate with a request from UN weapons inspectors regarding flights of U-2 spy planes for aerial imagery and surveillance.

(WHY

Mr Blix, who is charged with overseeing the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles, was accompanied by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Mr ElBaradei said that his inspectors had found no evidence that Iraq had revived its weapons programme after it was destroyed following the Gulf War.

But he said that inspectors needed more time to provide "credible assurance" that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.

He also urged Iraq to provide more information about the pre-1991 weapons programme.

John Negroponte, the United States ambassador to the UN, said that nothing Mr Blix and Mr ElBaradei had said indicated that Iraq had disarmed. He said: "Iraq is back to business as usual."

X Share & bookmark
Delicious Facebook Google Messenger Reddit Twitter Digg Fark LinkedIn Google Buzz StumbleUpon Y! Buzz What are these? Share: Share
inShare0http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1420179/Blix-weapons-and-anthrax-still-unaccounted-for.html
Telegraph
News
External Links
Unmovic
IAEA
UN Resolution 1441
10 Downing Street
Iraq - Foreign and Commonwealth Office
White House

BLIX, SADDAM, NOT BUSH
NOT THE CIA
BLIX CHANGING THIS AT A LATER DATE MAKE YOU AND BLIX WHAT?

I don't know why you keep repeating the same thing over again, Blix didn't provide justification for the invasion of Iraq, neither did the UN.

No one is doubting that Saddam was a 'bad guy', did you have another point to make?

But he said that inspectors needed more time to provide "credible assurance" that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.

But Bush refused to let them finish their UN mandate and invaded unilaterally and illegally. Just one of many points you include in your posts but refuse to accept.

If those statements had nothing to do with the invasion then explin to me why they would not?
this was not the CIA
there was no hidden agenda here
It was the UNs place in life to assure the world Saddam had done what he said he would do
GWB after 9-11 told him and the UN either clean it up oe we will

Blix told the world weeks before we invaded Iraq, after years of sanctions, had not cleaned it up
you tink this speech had no impact on the invasion 8 weeks later?
And what was illegal?

there where munitions found that met the WMD criteria
the senate and the house approved the trmoving Saddam by force by policy in 1998 and by mandate in 2002

WHAT WAS ILLEGAL?

It wasn't that long ago, I wonder why your memory is so faulty.

Blix hadn’t finished his inspections, Bush kicked him out to invade. Bush used the lie that Saddam had nuclear weapons and was a threat to the US via his tie to the 9/11 high-jackers to scare the public into supporting his invasion.

There is no other version of events, only explanations of and apologies for this version, all of which fail to provide legal cover for the invasion of Iraq.

 

[JRK]

No lefty talking point, just stone cold fact.

The fabled WMDs did not exist, or the admin would have told God, angels, and all witnesses.

No such release was ever made.

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
WHAT DO YOU CALL THIS?
THIS IS FROM THE DOD WHILE GWB WAS THE PRESIDENT IN 2006
THIS WAS MADE IN THE SENATE, NOT THE EMPRE STATE BUILDING

Another example of misinformation from the apologists. The threat Bush used was from nuclear weapons and that's the lie he used to justify invasion, not some mustard gas that Blix was in the process of finding when Bush stopped him from his UN mandated job to illegally invade.

there is no mis information here
your out of lies bud
this is the as far as you go, I hate being dis respectful
Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

 

[freedombecki]

Another example of misinformation from the apologists. The threat Bush used was from nuclear weapons and that's the lie he used to justify invasion, not some mustard gas that Blix was in the process of finding when Bush stopped him from his UN mandated job to illegally invade.

That's not the truth. You know how I know it's not the truth?

It's because you have zip links to any source links disproving it. Sources that could disprove it woud be at centcom.gov., and the date would be prior to 2006 and after 2003, when our military men found the weapons, loaded with sarin and other harsh gases, until 2006, When two Senators found out about the reports and made them public (see my post above).

I can't have a debate with a crazy person.

Good luck to you freedombecki. Perhaps your issue is your 12 years old but other than that, you seriously need professional help.

That doesn't wash. You provide the credible government link disproving my case.

 

[freedombecki]

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
WHAT DO YOU CALL THIS?
THIS IS FROM THE DOD WHILE GWB WAS THE PRESIDENT IN 2006
THIS WAS MADE IN THE SENATE, NOT THE EMPRE STATE BUILDING

Another example of misinformation from the apologists. The threat Bush used was from nuclear weapons and that's the lie he used to justify invasion, not some mustard gas that Blix was in the process of finding when Bush stopped him from his UN mandated job to illegally invade.

there is no mis information here
your out of lies bud
this is the as far as you go, I hate being dis respectful
Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

Good for you, JRK. He has to make up something that sounds good while the other debaters are asking what to do from their supervisors so it won't look like they ran out on the debate. It's all smoke and mirrors.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
WHAT DO YOU CALL THIS?
THIS IS FROM THE DOD WHILE GWB WAS THE PRESIDENT IN 2006
THIS WAS MADE IN THE SENATE, NOT THE EMPRE STATE BUILDING

Another example of misinformation from the apologists. The threat Bush used was from nuclear weapons and that's the lie he used to justify invasion, not some mustard gas that Blix was in the process of finding when Bush stopped him from his UN mandated job to illegally invade.

there is no mis information here
your out of lies bud
this is the as far as you go, I hate being dis respectful
Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

Wow, like talking with children. Do you read the links you post?

From your link;

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

"...if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions."

Bush kicked Blix out before he finished his inspections and both Blix and Anan state the invasion wasn't approved by UN resolutions. Both also state clearly the invasion was illegal as does your post given the ‘if, then’ wording included in the approval to use force.

 

[JRK]

Another example of misinformation from the apologists. The threat Bush used was from nuclear weapons and that's the lie he used to justify invasion, not some mustard gas that Blix was in the process of finding when Bush stopped him from his UN mandated job to illegally invade.

there is no mis information here
your out of lies bud
this is the as far as you go, I hate being dis respectful
Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

Wow, like talking with children. Do you read the links you post?

From your link;

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

"...if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions."

Bush kicked Blix out before he finished his inspections and both Blix and Anan state the invasion wasn't approved by UN resolutions. Both also state clearly the invasion was illegal as does your post given the ‘if, then’ wording included in the approval to use force.

So the +500 munitions ound after we invavded that were deemed WMDs
the anthrax Saddam claimed he had that the UN has never ound
met UN resolve?
the Un was given years to resolve this issue and as you point out
they did not

what do you think the resolution was about?

early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions
what part of attack dont you get

 

[Nic_Driver]

So the +500 munitions ound after we invavded that were deemed WMDs
the anthrax Saddam claimed he had that the UN has never ound
met UN resolve?

Blix was in the process of inspecting Iraq and finding these old munitions when Bush kicked him out to unilaterally invade.

What part of that are you having a hard time understanding?

the Un was given years to resolve this issue and as you point out
they did not

Again, because Bush kicked the inspectors out and didn't let them finish their mandate.



Did you have anything else or are we done here?

 

[Nic_Driver]

Again, from your link;

Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.

The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.

I guess he lied here too, the matter wasn't up to the United Nations or Iraq was it?

 

[freedombecki]

So the +500 munitions ound after we invavded that were deemed WMDs
the anthrax Saddam claimed he had that the UN has never ound
met UN resolve?

Blix was in the process of inspecting Iraq and finding these old munitions when Bush kicked him out to unilaterally invade.

What part of that are you having a hard time understanding?

the Un was given years to resolve this issue and as you point out
they did not

Again, because Bush kicked the inspectors out and didn't let them finish their mandate.

Did you have anything else or are we done here?

You're squirming in hypocrisy, Nic_Driver. You're ignoring Libya the Obama doctrine: non-national security, non-congressionally approved military attacks are perfectly legitimate for humanitarian reasons. You're remembering selectively what you want to remember about Iraq under President George W. Bush.

Hans Blix looked for Saddam Hussein's WOMDs and "eew, I can't find them."

That's because he was damned incompetent. Our troops found them in 2003 after we invaded Iraq, and they were just where Blix failed to "see" them.

​

 

[JRK]

So the +500 munitions ound after we invavded that were deemed WMDs
the anthrax Saddam claimed he had that the UN has never ound
met UN resolve?

Blix was in the process of inspecting Iraq and finding these old munitions when Bush kicked him out to unilaterally invade.

What part of that are you having a hard time understanding?

the Un was given years to resolve this issue and as you point out
they did not

Again, because Bush kicked the inspectors out and didn't let them finish their mandate.



Did you have anything else or are we done here?

Done?
you were done when this began
you have nothing to dispute the facts
1) the UN had years to resolve this issue
2) 9-11
3) GWB said clean it up or else
4) congress agrees 2002
5) Blix admits 1/2003 the UN is not getting it done, after years of failing they claim all they need is more time
6) 3/2003 there time run out

Legal
that simple
they have gave Saddam and the UN 18 months after 9-11 to get it done with 9-11 as the back drop of the urgencey

and you really think anything you say can change those facts?

 

[Nic_Driver]

So the +500 munitions ound after we invavded that were deemed WMDs
the anthrax Saddam claimed he had that the UN has never ound
met UN resolve?

Blix was in the process of inspecting Iraq and finding these old munitions when Bush kicked him out to unilaterally invade.

What part of that are you having a hard time understanding?

the Un was given years to resolve this issue and as you point out
they did not

Again, because Bush kicked the inspectors out and didn't let them finish their mandate.



Did you have anything else or are we done here?

Done?
you were done when this began
you have noting to disput the facts
1) the UN had years to resplve this issue
2) 9-11
3) GWB said clean it up or else
4) congress agrees 2002
5) Blix admits 1/2003 the UN is not getting it done, after years of failing they claim all they beend is more time
6) 3/2003 there time run out

Legal
that simple
they have gave Saddam and the UN 18 months after 9-11 to get it done with 9-11 as the back drop of the urgencey

and you really think anything you say can change those facts?

Ok, so you've got nothing to counter any of the information in my posts.

I do appreciate your use of links that so eloquently proved you wrong.

 

[freedombecki]

Blix was in the process of inspecting Iraq and finding these old munitions when Bush kicked him out to unilaterally invade.

What part of that are you having a hard time understanding?



Again, because Bush kicked the inspectors out and didn't let them finish their mandate.



Did you have anything else or are we done here?

Done?
you were done when this began
you have noting to disput the facts
1) the UN had years to resplve this issue
2) 9-11
3) GWB said clean it up or else
4) congress agrees 2002
5) Blix admits 1/2003 the UN is not getting it done, after years of failing they claim all they beend is more time
6) 3/2003 there time run out

Legal
that simple
they have gave Saddam and the UN 18 months after 9-11 to get it done with 9-11 as the back drop of the urgencey

and you really think anything you say can change those facts?

Ok, so you've got nothing to counter any of the information in my posts.

I do appreciate your use of links that so eloquently proved you wrong.

No, you're done here, nic_driver. YOU LOST HANDS DOWN!

 

[Unkotare]

These bobble-heads are just a broken record of lies and denials. Their talking points are gonna get worn out at this rate.

 

[JRK]

Blix was in the process of inspecting Iraq and finding these old munitions when Bush kicked him out to unilaterally invade.

What part of that are you having a hard time understanding?



Again, because Bush kicked the inspectors out and didn't let them finish their mandate.



Did you have anything else or are we done here?

Done?
you were done when this began
you have noting to disput the facts
1) the UN had years to resplve this issue
2) 9-11
3) GWB said clean it up or else
4) congress agrees 2002
5) Blix admits 1/2003 the UN is not getting it done, after years of failing they claim all they beend is more time
6) 3/2003 there time run out

Legal
that simple
they have gave Saddam and the UN 18 months after 9-11 to get it done with 9-11 as the back drop of the urgencey

and you really think anything you say can change those facts?

Ok, so you've got nothing to counter any of the information in my posts.

I do appreciate your use of links that so eloquently proved you wrong.

dude you have provide no facts
The UN left on there own accord
the war was legal
and we did exactly what we said we were going to do
my friend denial is not a river in Egypt

1) Saddam did not adhere to the UN resolutuions
2) Congress stated if he does not, attack
3) We attacked

If Saddam adheres to the UN resolutuions then were is the anthrax?
why was there 500 munitions found that were classified as munitions that were to be done away with?
where are the other 6000 that Saddam claimed he had that have never been found?

you have not answered any of these facts?

 

[Nic_Driver]

1) the UN had years to resolve this issue

But the UN decideds when they are finished inspecting, even the Bush White House admitted this, your link proved that.

2) 9-11

What do Saddam and 9/11 have to do with each other?

3) GWB said clean it up or else

No he didn't, he said "the matter is up to the United Nations". (From your link)

) congress agrees 2002

What Congress actually said, "..if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions."

Neither case is true as previously illustrated.

5) Blix admits 1/2003 the UN is not getting it done, after years of failing they claim all they need is more time

Here's what Blix actually said.

Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say - CNN
6) 3/2003 there time run out

[/quote]

The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.

"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. "I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

ElBaradei said he had been "pretty convinced" that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997.

Days before the fighting began, Vice President Dick Cheney weighed in with an opposing view.

"We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong," Cheney said.

Did you want to try again? You're thread is an epic failure.

 

[JRK]

1) the UN had years to resolve this issue

But the UN decideds when they are finished inspecting, even the Bush White House admitted this, your link proved that.

2) 9-11

What do Saddam and 9/11 have to do with each other?



No he didn't, he said "the matter is up to the United Nations". (From your link)



What Congress actually said, "..if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions."

Neither case is true as previously illustrated.



Here's what Blix actually said.

Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say - CNN
6) 3/2003 there time run out

The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.

"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. "I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

ElBaradei said he had been "pretty convinced" that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997.

Days before the fighting began, Vice President Dick Cheney weighed in with an opposing view.

"We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong," Cheney said.

Did you want to try again? You're thread is an epic failure.[/QUOTE]

Dude you keep ignoring the simple facts
9-11? we got that one wrong, we found that out after we invaded, no-one made that claim and could back it up prior to 9-11
and as far as what did 9-11 have to do wih it? your smarter than that
but if I must, it changed the game for ever
they chosse to ignore nothing

Blix made the statement of the 6500 munitions and the anthrax and the other "stuff" was made on jan of 2003

you keep going past tense as though Blix made those commentd your using prior to 1/2003
he was covering his ass

my threads are not my information
they are from the US senate
Blix and the Un
the DOD

there not mine, I am sorry those facts hurt your agenda
you got a problem with that, take it up with google
go away, your wasting my time and energy unless you can find a link that was made after 1/2003 and before 3-2003 that blix states his 1-2003 where in correct
and one that the DOD states there statements to congress in 2006 where in-correct
and finally one in which the US congress went back on there resolution 10/2002 granting the US the power to attack Saddam

you have reached a point in whish your reality has found a place in which no matter how hard you will try, you cannot change these facts

your spinning the events that in realiy are events that took place from 10-2002 thru 3-2003
events I had little to do with except who I voted for

 

[Nic_Driver]

1) the UN had years to resolve this issue

But the UN decideds when they are finished inspecting, even the Bush White House admitted this, your link proved that.



What do Saddam and 9/11 have to do with each other?



No he didn't, he said "the matter is up to the United Nations". (From your link)



What Congress actually said, "..if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions."

Neither case is true as previously illustrated.



Here's what Blix actually said.

Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say - CNN
6) 3/2003 there time run out

The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.

"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. "I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

ElBaradei said he had been "pretty convinced" that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997.

Days before the fighting began, Vice President Dick Cheney weighed in with an opposing view.

"We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong," Cheney said.

Did you want to try again? You're thread is an epic failure.

Dude you keep ignoring the simple facts
9-11? we got that one wrong, we found that out after we invaded, no-one made that claim and could back it up prior to 9-11
and as far as what did 9-11 have to do wih it? your smarter than that
but if I must, it changed the game for ever
they chosse to ignore nothing

Blix made the statement of the 6500 munitions and the anthrax and the other "stuff" was made on jan of 2003

you keep going past tense as though Blix made those commentd your using prior to 1/2003
he was covering his ass

my threads are not my information
they are from the US senate
Blix and the Un
the DOD

there not mine, I am sorry those facts hurt your agenda
you got a problem with that, take it up with google
go away, your wasting my time and energy unless you can find a link that was made after 1/2003 and before 3-2003 that blix states his 1-2003 where in correct
and one that the DOD states there statements to congress in 2006 where in-correct
and finally one in which the US congress went back on there resolution 10/2002 granting the US the power to attack Saddam

you have reached a point in whish your reality has found a place in which no matter how hard you will try, you cannot change these facts

your spinning the events that in realiy are events that took place from 10-2002 thru 3-2003
events I had little to do with except who I voted for

You keep repeating the same stuff over and over again. Try to rebut the information in my posts.

For example, did Bush state ""the matter is up to the United Nations" or not?

What do you think he meant by that in the context of the article in the link in your thread that quotes his White House making this statement?

Let's start with an easy one and work into it.

I'll wait for you to answer before we go on, ok?