Words have meanings... When did a "Liberation of Iraq" become an "Invasion of Iraq"?

[healthmyths]

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq..."
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia
Note: Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.

But why all of a sudden did the positive word "Liberation" get switched to "Invasion" when Bush became
President?
What role did the biased MSM having in altering people's perceptions from a "positive" activity, to
a "negative" INVASION"?

And with these three considerations Is Iraq better off today?

1)In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
Consider that from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children starved. Do you know why?
Because Saddam would NOT comply with UN sanctions which dictated he simply acknowledge there were NO WMDs. Saddam would rather 576,000 children starve to death.
Thank goodness for the compassion of Americans. Because if Saddam were still in power today, nearly 3.6 million more children would have starved!

2) Major deaths and destruction avoided that even CBS news acknowledged was a "WMD" practice by Saddam. Scott Pelley of CBS news declared WMDs were found!
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
3) GDP...In 2003 The AVERAGE IRAQ per capita GDP was $600!
In 2013 it was 10 times that at $6,000
$16,200 (2014 est.)
$15,400 (2015 est.)
$16,500 (2016 est.)
The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
$600 in 2003 under Saddam... versus 2016 $16,500! That is a 2,650% growth in 13 years.

So again... why did the MSM change the wording "Liberation" to "Invasion" when after all the
Iraqis are now based on the per capita GDP at least 2,650% better off!

 

[HaShev]

It's the same way the Main Stream Media decided to paint the narative of us starting the war with Iraq instead of the truth of it being a continuation of the war Iraq already started and did not abide by the peace treaty.

The Liberal media mostly being anti religion and anti Bible, does not want to draw parallels to Ancient Babylon with Nebuchadnezzar and modern day Babylon with Saddam claiming he is in emulation of.
They are so used to looking the other way and not reporting the context of rocket attacks on Israel whether Hezbollah, Hamas or those skuds from Saddam, yet throw one bottle rocket in any of the fake news hosts yards and watch them turn into old man Wilson complaining about the neighborhood kids while uttering the phrase "oh they want to start a war, I'll show them a war"
-go figure!

 

[Mac1958]

Something happened on September 11, 2001 that changed everything.

After that happened, our Commander in Chief ordered the invasion of Iraq because he was convinced that Saddam had WMD that he was convinced Saddam would use against us.

Yes, one had nothing to do with the other, but our Commander in Chief had made up his mind.

And, as we all know, only one person on the planet had the final authority to order the invasion: The Commander in Chief.
.

 

[cnm]

As soon as the crime against peace of initiating aggressive war was undertaken. By Fuckwit43 and his cronies, in case you've forgotten.

 

[Mac1958]

...
.

 

[HaShev]

Quite the contrary, They crossed the literal no fly zone line breaking the treaty instantly.
AND there is sooooooo much that you guys don't know about

 

[rightwinger]

Either way....we still ended up with 6000 needless American lives lost and 100,000 Iraqi

 

[NYcarbineer]

The pro-Iraq war diehards just won't quit.

 

[Tehon]

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq..."
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia
Note: Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.

But why all of a sudden did the positive word "Liberation" get switched to "Invasion" when Bush became
President?
What role did the biased MSM having in altering people's perceptions from a "positive" activity, to
a "negative" INVASION"?

And with these three considerations Is Iraq better off today?

1)In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
Consider that from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children starved. Do you know why?
Because Saddam would NOT comply with UN sanctions which dictated he simply acknowledge there were NO WMDs. Saddam would rather 576,000 children starve to death.
Thank goodness for the compassion of Americans. Because if Saddam were still in power today, nearly 3.6 million more children would have starved!

2) Major deaths and destruction avoided that even CBS news acknowledged was a "WMD" practice by Saddam. Scott Pelley of CBS news declared WMDs were found!
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
3) GDP...In 2003 The AVERAGE IRAQ per capita GDP was $600!
In 2013 it was 10 times that at $6,000
$16,200 (2014 est.)
$15,400 (2015 est.)
$16,500 (2016 est.)
The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
$600 in 2003 under Saddam... versus 2016 $16,500! That is a 2,650% growth in 13 years.

So again... why did the MSM change the wording "Liberation" to "Invasion" when after all the
Iraqis are now based on the per capita GDP at least 2,650% better off!

Words have meanings. And apparently you are unfamiliar with the meanings of the words you have selected.

 

[cnm]

double post

 

[HaShev]

The pro-Iraq war diehards just won't quit.

OK forum Nostradamus, please tell us how many people would have died and what kind of global destruction would have occured if we let Saddam remain and then his son Uday take over afterwards?
You can cheat and use Hassan and
Kim Jong Un to help compute your figure oh wise one.

 

[HaShev]

Either way....we still ended up with 6000 needless American lives lost and 100,000 Iraqi

I'll give you my same response:

OK forum Nostradamus, please tell us how many people would have died and what kind of global destruction would have occured if we let Saddam remain and then his son Uday take over afterwards?
You can cheat and use Hassan and
Kim Jong Un to help compute your figure oh wise one.

 

[August West]

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq..."
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia
Note: Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.

But why all of a sudden did the positive word "Liberation" get switched to "Invasion" when Bush became
President?
What role did the biased MSM having in altering people's perceptions from a "positive" activity, to
a "negative" INVASION"?

And with these three considerations Is Iraq better off today?

1)In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who

The pro-Iraq war diehards just won't quit.

OK forum Nostradamus, please tell us how many people would have died and what kind of global destruction would have occured if we let Saddam remain and then his son Uday take over afterwards?
You can cheat and use Hassan and
Kim Jong Un to help compute your figure oh wise one.

surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
Consider that from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children starved. Do you know why?
Because Saddam would NOT comply with UN sanctions which dictated he simply acknowledge there were NO WMDs. Saddam would rather 576,000 children starve to death.
Thank goodness for the compassion of Americans. Because if Saddam were still in power today, nearly 3.6 million more children would have starved!

2) Major deaths and destruction avoided that even CBS news acknowledged was a "WMD" practice by Saddam. Scott Pelley of CBS news declared WMDs were found!
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
3) GDP...In 2003 The AVERAGE IRAQ per capita GDP was $600!
In 2013 it was 10 times that at $6,000
$16,200 (2014 est.)
$15,400 (2015 est.)
$16,500 (2016 est.)
The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
$600 in 2003 under Saddam... versus 2016 $16,500! That is a 2,650% growth in 13 years.

So again... why did the MSM change the wording "Liberation" to "Invasion" when after all the
Iraqis are now based on the per capita GDP at least 2,650% better off!

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder - Wikipedia

 

[cnm]

Quite the contrary, They crossed the literal no fly zone line breaking the treaty instantly.

There was not a no fly zone in the treaty with the UN. The no fly zone was imposed arbitrarily by the US and the UK. The initiators of aggressive war, along with the Australians and the Poles, and the perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

 

[cnm]

Quite the contrary, They crossed the literal no fly zone line breaking the treaty instantly.

There was not a no fly zone in the treaty with the UN. The no fly zone was imposed arbitrarily by the US and the UK. Who were the initiators of aggressive war, along with the Australians and the Poles, and the perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The pro-Iraq war diehards just won't quit.

OK forum Nostradamus, please tell us how many people would have died and what kind of global destruction would have occured if we let Saddam remain and then his son Uday take over afterwards?
You can cheat and use Hassan and
Kim Jong Un to help compute your figure oh wise one.

So you want to invade North Korea. Got it.

 

[rightwinger]

The pro-Iraq war diehards just won't quit.

OK forum Nostradamus, please tell us how many people would have died and what kind of global destruction would have occured if we let Saddam remain and then his son Uday take over afterwards?
You can cheat and use Hassan and
Kim Jong Un to help compute your figure oh wise one.

They were contained. Saddam was more concerned about remaining in power than extending it

 

[Theowl32]

Something happened on September 11, 2001 that changed everything.

After that happened, our Commander in Chief ordered the invasion of Iraq because he was convinced that Saddam had WMD that he was convinced Saddam would use against us.

Yes, one had nothing to do with the other, but our Commander in Chief had made up his mind.

And, as we all know, only one person on the planet had the final authority to order the invasion: The Commander in Chief.
.

Ahhhh, your little biased point of view shines through.

What happened was the paradigm shifted on how to deal with perceived threats to the US. After 911, our foreign policy shifted from a reactive to more preemptive, considering what we saw 19 sandNIGGERS did without a gun to this country.

There were far more people claiming saddam had wmds and wanting to aquire nuclear weapons.

That was confirmed by his own son in laws, who he had executed.

We also know the Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs long before Bush ever took office.

We also know wmds were in fact found in Iraq as reported by the NY Times.

All of this has been proven.

It is actually sort of how the communists here protested the Vietnam War as unrighteous. Well, not sure what was so unrighteous about defending our ally South Vietnam from being run over by communist expansion.

You get that everyone? The commie college protests, with hollywood glorified the commies and attacked big bad America. Highlighted by Hanoi Jane giving aid and comfort to the communists. Like the treasonous cunnt she is.

No, the mass media controls our thoughts and they have been traitorous scumbags for many years now.

The whole Iraq situation is a clear example of that. They shape our thoughts and dictate how to think.

Watch this and see how a scumbag treasonous "news" outlet like CNN does it.



Yes, there is power in words and how things are labeled. The sheep just follow along.

 

[cnm]

Double post

 

[cnm]

Ahhhh, your little biased point of view shines through.

Unlike your pile of shit and lies which sits and steams gently.

 

[Mac1958]

Something happened on September 11, 2001 that changed everything.

After that happened, our Commander in Chief ordered the invasion of Iraq because he was convinced that Saddam had WMD that he was convinced Saddam would use against us.

Yes, one had nothing to do with the other, but our Commander in Chief had made up his mind.

And, as we all know, only one person on the planet had the final authority to order the invasion: The Commander in Chief.
.

Ahhhh, your little biased point of view shines through.

What happened was the paradigm shifted on how to deal with perceived threats to the US. After 911, our foreign policy shifted from a reactive to more preemptive, considering what we saw 19 sandNIGGERS did without a gun to this country.

There were far more people claiming saddam had wmds and wanting to aquire nuclear weapons.

That was confirmed by his own son in laws, who he had executed.

We also know the Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs long before Bush ever took office.

We also know wmds were in fact found in Iraq as reported by the NY Times.

All of this has been proven.

It is actually sort of how the communists here protested the Vietnam War as unrighteous. Well, not sure what was so unrighteous about defending our ally South Vietnam from being run over by communist expansion.

You get that everyone? The commie college protests, with hollywood glorified the commies and attacked big bad America. Highlighted by Hanoi Jane giving aid and comfort to the communists. Like the treasonous cunnt she is.

No, the mass media controls our thoughts and they have been traitorous scumbags for many years now.

The whole Iraq situation is a clear example of that. They shape our thoughts and dictate how to think.

Watch this and see how a scumbag treasonous "news" outlet like CNN does it.



Yes, there is power in words and how things are labeled. The sheep just follow along.

Quick Quiz:

There is one (1) person on the planet with the authority to send American troops to war. Who is it

1. The current Commander in Chief of the United States of America
2. The New York Times
3. Commie college protests
4. The Mass Media
5. Bill Clinton
6. Congress

Go ahead.
.

 

[Theowl32]

Something happened on September 11, 2001 that changed everything.

After that happened, our Commander in Chief ordered the invasion of Iraq because he was convinced that Saddam had WMD that he was convinced Saddam would use against us.

Yes, one had nothing to do with the other, but our Commander in Chief had made up his mind.

And, as we all know, only one person on the planet had the final authority to order the invasion: The Commander in Chief.
.

Ahhhh, your little biased point of view shines through.

What happened was the paradigm shifted on how to deal with perceived threats to the US. After 911, our foreign policy shifted from a reactive to more preemptive, considering what we saw 19 sandNIGGERS did without a gun to this country.

There were far more people claiming saddam had wmds and wanting to aquire nuclear weapons.

That was confirmed by his own son in laws, who he had executed.

We also know the Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs long before Bush ever took office.

We also know wmds were in fact found in Iraq as reported by the NY Times.

All of this has been proven.

It is actually sort of how the communists here protested the Vietnam War as unrighteous. Well, not sure what was so unrighteous about defending our ally South Vietnam from being run over by communist expansion.

You get that everyone? The commie college protests, with hollywood glorified the commies and attacked big bad America. Highlighted by Hanoi Jane giving aid and comfort to the communists. Like the treasonous cunnt she is.

No, the mass media controls our thoughts and they have been traitorous scumbags for many years now.

The whole Iraq situation is a clear example of that. They shape our thoughts and dictate how to think.

Watch this and see how a scumbag treasonous "news" outlet like CNN does it.



Yes, there is power in words and how things are labeled. The sheep just follow along.

Quick Quiz:

There is one (1) person on the planet with the authority to send American troops to war. Who is it

1. The current Commander in Chief of the United States of America
2. The New York Times
3. Commie college protests
4. The Mass Media
5. Bill Clinton
6. Congress

Go ahead.
.

You think I am going to take the time to answer your bullshit rhetorical question?

What I cannot tell is if you acknowledge the shift in policy from reactive to preemptive after 911 and whether or not you think that was a good policy.

Oh, you have the luxury of saddam being worm shit. Then again you left wing truthers are upset he is dead. Wait, I cannot remember liberals protesting the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs under clinton.


Oooops, was that another one of those things where you all booo the firing of Comey only after Trump fired him, even though you all called for his firing for 6 months?

I get it. A bleeding self admitted hillary voter like yourself, don't hold her to account for voting for the war. Ahhhh, she was lied to by bush even though her husband signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs.

You think I would take the time to answer your fucking question?

 

[Theowl32]

Something happened on September 11, 2001 that changed everything.

After that happened, our Commander in Chief ordered the invasion of Iraq because he was convinced that Saddam had WMD that he was convinced Saddam would use against us.

Yes, one had nothing to do with the other, but our Commander in Chief had made up his mind.

And, as we all know, only one person on the planet had the final authority to order the invasion: The Commander in Chief.
.

Ahhhh, your little biased point of view shines through.

What happened was the paradigm shifted on how to deal with perceived threats to the US. After 911, our foreign policy shifted from a reactive to more preemptive, considering what we saw 19 sandNIGGERS did without a gun to this country.

There were far more people claiming saddam had wmds and wanting to aquire nuclear weapons.

That was confirmed by his own son in laws, who he had executed.

We also know the Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs long before Bush ever took office.

We also know wmds were in fact found in Iraq as reported by the NY Times.

All of this has been proven.

It is actually sort of how the communists here protested the Vietnam War as unrighteous. Well, not sure what was so unrighteous about defending our ally South Vietnam from being run over by communist expansion.

You get that everyone? The commie college protests, with hollywood glorified the commies and attacked big bad America. Highlighted by Hanoi Jane giving aid and comfort to the communists. Like the treasonous cunnt she is.

No, the mass media controls our thoughts and they have been traitorous scumbags for many years now.

The whole Iraq situation is a clear example of that. They shape our thoughts and dictate how to think.

Watch this and see how a scumbag treasonous "news" outlet like CNN does it.



Yes, there is power in words and how things are labeled. The sheep just follow along.

Quick Quiz:

There is one (1) person on the planet with the authority to send American troops to war. Who is it

1. The current Commander in Chief of the United States of America
2. The New York Times
3. Commie college protests
4. The Mass Media
5. Bill Clinton
6. Congress

Go ahead.
.

You think I am going to take the time to answer your bullshit rhetorical question?

What I cannot tell is if you acknowledge the shift in policy from reactive to preemptive after 911 and whether or not you think that was a good policy.

Oh, you have the luxury of saddam being worm shit. Then again you left wing truthers are upset he is dead. Wait, I cannot remember liberals protesting the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs under clinton.


Oooops, was that another one of those things where you all booo the firing of Comey only after Trump fired him, even though you all called for his firing for 6 months?

I get it. A bleeding self admitted hillary voter like yourself, don't hold her to account for voting for the war. Ahhhh, she was lied to by bush even though her husband signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs.

You think I would take the time to answer your fucking question?

 

[Mac1958]

Something happened on September 11, 2001 that changed everything.

After that happened, our Commander in Chief ordered the invasion of Iraq because he was convinced that Saddam had WMD that he was convinced Saddam would use against us.

Yes, one had nothing to do with the other, but our Commander in Chief had made up his mind.

And, as we all know, only one person on the planet had the final authority to order the invasion: The Commander in Chief.
.

Ahhhh, your little biased point of view shines through.

What happened was the paradigm shifted on how to deal with perceived threats to the US. After 911, our foreign policy shifted from a reactive to more preemptive, considering what we saw 19 sandNIGGERS did without a gun to this country.

There were far more people claiming saddam had wmds and wanting to aquire nuclear weapons.

That was confirmed by his own son in laws, who he had executed.

We also know the Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs long before Bush ever took office.

We also know wmds were in fact found in Iraq as reported by the NY Times.

All of this has been proven.

It is actually sort of how the communists here protested the Vietnam War as unrighteous. Well, not sure what was so unrighteous about defending our ally South Vietnam from being run over by communist expansion.

You get that everyone? The commie college protests, with hollywood glorified the commies and attacked big bad America. Highlighted by Hanoi Jane giving aid and comfort to the communists. Like the treasonous cunnt she is.

No, the mass media controls our thoughts and they have been traitorous scumbags for many years now.

The whole Iraq situation is a clear example of that. They shape our thoughts and dictate how to think.

Watch this and see how a scumbag treasonous "news" outlet like CNN does it.



Yes, there is power in words and how things are labeled. The sheep just follow along.

Quick Quiz:

There is one (1) person on the planet with the authority to send American troops to war. Who is it

1. The current Commander in Chief of the United States of America
2. The New York Times
3. Commie college protests
4. The Mass Media
5. Bill Clinton
6. Congress

Go ahead.
.

You think I am going to take the time to answer your bullshit rhetorical question?

What I cannot tell is if you acknowledge the shift in policy from reactive to preemptive after 911 and whether or not you think that was a good policy.

Oh, you have the luxury of saddam being worm shit. Then again you left wing truthers are upset he is dead. Wait, I cannot remember liberals protesting the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs under clinton.


Oooops, was that another one of those things where you all booo the firing of Comey only after Trump fired him, even though you all called for his firing for 6 months?

I get it. A bleeding self admitted hillary voter like yourself, don't hold her to account for voting for the war. Ahhhh, she was lied to by bush even though her husband signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs.

You think I would take the time to answer your fucking question?

Like millions of others, I was saying "please don't do this", while people like you were screaming "USA! USA! USA!"

We were right.

 

[cnm]

Ahhhh, your little biased point of view shines through.

Unlike your pile of shit and lies which sits and steams gently.

 

[Mousterian]

6000 tragedies, self-inflicted.

 

[Theowl32]

Something happened on September 11, 2001 that changed everything.

After that happened, our Commander in Chief ordered the invasion of Iraq because he was convinced that Saddam had WMD that he was convinced Saddam would use against us.

Yes, one had nothing to do with the other, but our Commander in Chief had made up his mind.

And, as we all know, only one person on the planet had the final authority to order the invasion: The Commander in Chief.
.

Ahhhh, your little biased point of view shines through.

What happened was the paradigm shifted on how to deal with perceived threats to the US. After 911, our foreign policy shifted from a reactive to more preemptive, considering what we saw 19 sandNIGGERS did without a gun to this country.

There were far more people claiming saddam had wmds and wanting to aquire nuclear weapons.

That was confirmed by his own son in laws, who he had executed.

We also know the Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs long before Bush ever took office.

We also know wmds were in fact found in Iraq as reported by the NY Times.

All of this has been proven.

It is actually sort of how the communists here protested the Vietnam War as unrighteous. Well, not sure what was so unrighteous about defending our ally South Vietnam from being run over by communist expansion.

You get that everyone? The commie college protests, with hollywood glorified the commies and attacked big bad America. Highlighted by Hanoi Jane giving aid and comfort to the communists. Like the treasonous cunnt she is.

No, the mass media controls our thoughts and they have been traitorous scumbags for many years now.

The whole Iraq situation is a clear example of that. They shape our thoughts and dictate how to think.

Watch this and see how a scumbag treasonous "news" outlet like CNN does it.



Yes, there is power in words and how things are labeled. The sheep just follow along.

Quick Quiz:

There is one (1) person on the planet with the authority to send American troops to war. Who is it

1. The current Commander in Chief of the United States of America
2. The New York Times
3. Commie college protests
4. The Mass Media
5. Bill Clinton
6. Congress

Go ahead.
.

You think I am going to take the time to answer your bullshit rhetorical question?

What I cannot tell is if you acknowledge the shift in policy from reactive to preemptive after 911 and whether or not you think that was a good policy.

Oh, you have the luxury of saddam being worm shit. Then again you left wing truthers are upset he is dead. Wait, I cannot remember liberals protesting the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs under clinton.


Oooops, was that another one of those things where you all booo the firing of Comey only after Trump fired him, even though you all called for his firing for 6 months?

I get it. A bleeding self admitted hillary voter like yourself, don't hold her to account for voting for the war. Ahhhh, she was lied to by bush even though her husband signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs.

You think I would take the time to answer your fucking question?

Like millions of others, I was saying "please don't do this", while people like you were screaming "USA! USA! USA!"

We were right.

Yeah, you having the luxury of saddam being worm shit and you being a hypocritical sheep along with you not acknowledging the shift in policy, is what you base that on.

You can continue on with your pretend concern for American military members. That's funny. You think I buy any of that shit?

Meanwhile, please continue crying over saddam being dead while claiming to care so much for the poor Iraqi people.

What all of that means is you are not right about a thing. You are just a lying hypocritical ass face about everything.

 

[Mac1958]

Something happened on September 11, 2001 that changed everything.

After that happened, our Commander in Chief ordered the invasion of Iraq because he was convinced that Saddam had WMD that he was convinced Saddam would use against us.

Yes, one had nothing to do with the other, but our Commander in Chief had made up his mind.

And, as we all know, only one person on the planet had the final authority to order the invasion: The Commander in Chief.
.

Ahhhh, your little biased point of view shines through.

What happened was the paradigm shifted on how to deal with perceived threats to the US. After 911, our foreign policy shifted from a reactive to more preemptive, considering what we saw 19 sandNIGGERS did without a gun to this country.

There were far more people claiming saddam had wmds and wanting to aquire nuclear weapons.

That was confirmed by his own son in laws, who he had executed.

We also know the Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs long before Bush ever took office.

We also know wmds were in fact found in Iraq as reported by the NY Times.

All of this has been proven.

It is actually sort of how the communists here protested the Vietnam War as unrighteous. Well, not sure what was so unrighteous about defending our ally South Vietnam from being run over by communist expansion.

You get that everyone? The commie college protests, with hollywood glorified the commies and attacked big bad America. Highlighted by Hanoi Jane giving aid and comfort to the communists. Like the treasonous cunnt she is.

No, the mass media controls our thoughts and they have been traitorous scumbags for many years now.

The whole Iraq situation is a clear example of that. They shape our thoughts and dictate how to think.

Watch this and see how a scumbag treasonous "news" outlet like CNN does it.



Yes, there is power in words and how things are labeled. The sheep just follow along.

Quick Quiz:

There is one (1) person on the planet with the authority to send American troops to war. Who is it

1. The current Commander in Chief of the United States of America
2. The New York Times
3. Commie college protests
4. The Mass Media
5. Bill Clinton
6. Congress

Go ahead.
.

You think I am going to take the time to answer your bullshit rhetorical question?

What I cannot tell is if you acknowledge the shift in policy from reactive to preemptive after 911 and whether or not you think that was a good policy.

Oh, you have the luxury of saddam being worm shit. Then again you left wing truthers are upset he is dead. Wait, I cannot remember liberals protesting the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs under clinton.


Oooops, was that another one of those things where you all booo the firing of Comey only after Trump fired him, even though you all called for his firing for 6 months?

I get it. A bleeding self admitted hillary voter like yourself, don't hold her to account for voting for the war. Ahhhh, she was lied to by bush even though her husband signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs.

You think I would take the time to answer your fucking question?

Like millions of others, I was saying "please don't do this", while people like you were screaming "USA! USA! USA!"

We were right.

Yeah, you having the luxury of saddam being worm shit and you being a hypocritical sheep along with you not acknowledging the shift in policy, is what you base that on.

You can continue on with your pretend concern for American military members. That's funny. You think I buy any of that shit?

Meanwhile, please continue crying over saddam being dead while claiming to care so much for the poor Iraqi people.

What all of that means is you are not right about a thing. You are just a lying hypocritical ass face about everything.

I hate to break this to you, but you can't overwhelm someone with your anger on an internet message board.



You and yours own what happened. We told you not to do it.

6,000 dead, TRILLIONS spent. Own it.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq..."
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia
Note: Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.

But why all of a sudden did the positive word "Liberation" get switched to "Invasion" when Bush became
President?
What role did the biased MSM having in altering people's perceptions from a "positive" activity, to
a "negative" INVASION"?

And with these three considerations Is Iraq better off today?

1)In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
Consider that from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children starved. Do you know why?
Because Saddam would NOT comply with UN sanctions which dictated he simply acknowledge there were NO WMDs. Saddam would rather 576,000 children starve to death.
Thank goodness for the compassion of Americans. Because if Saddam were still in power today, nearly 3.6 million more children would have starved!

2) Major deaths and destruction avoided that even CBS news acknowledged was a "WMD" practice by Saddam. Scott Pelley of CBS news declared WMDs were found!
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
3) GDP...In 2003 The AVERAGE IRAQ per capita GDP was $600!
In 2013 it was 10 times that at $6,000
$16,200 (2014 est.)
$15,400 (2015 est.)
$16,500 (2016 est.)
The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
$600 in 2003 under Saddam... versus 2016 $16,500! That is a 2,650% growth in 13 years.

So again... why did the MSM change the wording "Liberation" to "Invasion" when after all the
Iraqis are now based on the per capita GDP at least 2,650% better off!

Since the OP obviously never read the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, because he's stupid,

let me post a relevant portion:

Sec. 8. Rule of Construction.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Wikisource, the free online library

 

[Theowl32]

Ahhhh, your little biased point of view shines through.

What happened was the paradigm shifted on how to deal with perceived threats to the US. After 911, our foreign policy shifted from a reactive to more preemptive, considering what we saw 19 sandNIGGERS did without a gun to this country.

There were far more people claiming saddam had wmds and wanting to aquire nuclear weapons.

That was confirmed by his own son in laws, who he had executed.

We also know the Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs long before Bush ever took office.

We also know wmds were in fact found in Iraq as reported by the NY Times.

All of this has been proven.

It is actually sort of how the communists here protested the Vietnam War as unrighteous. Well, not sure what was so unrighteous about defending our ally South Vietnam from being run over by communist expansion.

You get that everyone? The commie college protests, with hollywood glorified the commies and attacked big bad America. Highlighted by Hanoi Jane giving aid and comfort to the communists. Like the treasonous cunnt she is.

No, the mass media controls our thoughts and they have been traitorous scumbags for many years now.

The whole Iraq situation is a clear example of that. They shape our thoughts and dictate how to think.

Watch this and see how a scumbag treasonous "news" outlet like CNN does it.



Yes, there is power in words and how things are labeled. The sheep just follow along.

Quick Quiz:

There is one (1) person on the planet with the authority to send American troops to war. Who is it

1. The current Commander in Chief of the United States of America
2. The New York Times
3. Commie college protests
4. The Mass Media
5. Bill Clinton
6. Congress

Go ahead.
.

You think I am going to take the time to answer your bullshit rhetorical question?

What I cannot tell is if you acknowledge the shift in policy from reactive to preemptive after 911 and whether or not you think that was a good policy.

Oh, you have the luxury of saddam being worm shit. Then again you left wing truthers are upset he is dead. Wait, I cannot remember liberals protesting the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs under clinton.


Oooops, was that another one of those things where you all booo the firing of Comey only after Trump fired him, even though you all called for his firing for 6 months?

I get it. A bleeding self admitted hillary voter like yourself, don't hold her to account for voting for the war. Ahhhh, she was lied to by bush even though her husband signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs.

You think I would take the time to answer your fucking question?

Like millions of others, I was saying "please don't do this", while people like you were screaming "USA! USA! USA!"

We were right.

Yeah, you having the luxury of saddam being worm shit and you being a hypocritical sheep along with you not acknowledging the shift in policy, is what you base that on.

You can continue on with your pretend concern for American military members. That's funny. You think I buy any of that shit?

Meanwhile, please continue crying over saddam being dead while claiming to care so much for the poor Iraqi people.

What all of that means is you are not right about a thing. You are just a lying hypocritical ass face about everything.

I hate to break this to you, but you can't overwhelm someone with your anger on an internet message board.



You and yours own what happened. We told you not to do it.

6,000 dead, TRILLIONS spent. Own it.
.

Your hypocrisy does not impress me. You can deny you are and get comforted by the other hypocrites in your safe spaces all you want.

Your obfuscation from the facts and your little cliches and democrat talking points are nothing but you losing the debate.

So, are you being a good little lamb and booing Comey being fired?

You already show you are a good little lamb pretending to care for American troops while you ignore clinton signing the Iraq Liberation Act along with ignoring that wmds were found, along with hillary approving the LIBERATION.

Lol....

"I voted against it, after I voted for it." John Kerry.

Liberals: Often in error, never in doubt.

 

[postman]

Note: Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.

But why all of a sudden did the positive word "Liberation" get switched to "Invasion" when Bush became
President?

Because the 1998 act specifically excluded the use of military force in carrying it out. So if Bush used military force, it was the antithesis of the 1998 "liberation" act.

 

[postman]

Note: Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.

But why all of a sudden did the positive word "Liberation" get switched to "Invasion" when Bush became
President?

Because the 1998 act specifically excluded the use of military force in carrying it out. So if Bush used military force, it was the antithesis of the 1998 "liberation" act.

 

[Mac1958]

Quick Quiz:

There is one (1) person on the planet with the authority to send American troops to war. Who is it

1. The current Commander in Chief of the United States of America
2. The New York Times
3. Commie college protests
4. The Mass Media
5. Bill Clinton
6. Congress

Go ahead.
.

You think I am going to take the time to answer your bullshit rhetorical question?

What I cannot tell is if you acknowledge the shift in policy from reactive to preemptive after 911 and whether or not you think that was a good policy.

Oh, you have the luxury of saddam being worm shit. Then again you left wing truthers are upset he is dead. Wait, I cannot remember liberals protesting the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs under clinton.


Oooops, was that another one of those things where you all booo the firing of Comey only after Trump fired him, even though you all called for his firing for 6 months?

I get it. A bleeding self admitted hillary voter like yourself, don't hold her to account for voting for the war. Ahhhh, she was lied to by bush even though her husband signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs.

You think I would take the time to answer your fucking question?

Like millions of others, I was saying "please don't do this", while people like you were screaming "USA! USA! USA!"

We were right.

Yeah, you having the luxury of saddam being worm shit and you being a hypocritical sheep along with you not acknowledging the shift in policy, is what you base that on.

You can continue on with your pretend concern for American military members. That's funny. You think I buy any of that shit?

Meanwhile, please continue crying over saddam being dead while claiming to care so much for the poor Iraqi people.

What all of that means is you are not right about a thing. You are just a lying hypocritical ass face about everything.

I hate to break this to you, but you can't overwhelm someone with your anger on an internet message board.



You and yours own what happened. We told you not to do it.

6,000 dead, TRILLIONS spent. Own it.
.

Your hypocrisy does not impress me. You can deny you are and get comforted by the other hypocrites in your safe spaces all you want.

Your obfuscation from the facts and your little cliches and democrat talking points are nothing but you losing the debate.

So, are you being a good little lamb and booing Comey being fired?

You already show you are a good little lamb pretending to care for American troops while you ignore clinton signing the Iraq Liberation Act along with ignoring that wmds were found, along with hillary approving the LIBERATION.

Lol....

"I voted against it, after I voted for it." John Kerry.

Liberals: Often in error, never in doubt.

Own it, don't own it, whichever.
.

 

[rightwinger]

Something happened on September 11, 2001 that changed everything.

After that happened, our Commander in Chief ordered the invasion of Iraq because he was convinced that Saddam had WMD that he was convinced Saddam would use against us.

Yes, one had nothing to do with the other, but our Commander in Chief had made up his mind.

And, as we all know, only one person on the planet had the final authority to order the invasion: The Commander in Chief.
.

Ahhhh, your little biased point of view shines through.

What happened was the paradigm shifted on how to deal with perceived threats to the US. After 911, our foreign policy shifted from a reactive to more preemptive, considering what we saw 19 sandNIGGERS did without a gun to this country.

There were far more people claiming saddam had wmds and wanting to aquire nuclear weapons.

That was confirmed by his own son in laws, who he had executed.

We also know the Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs long before Bush ever took office.

We also know wmds were in fact found in Iraq as reported by the NY Times.

All of this has been proven.

It is actually sort of how the communists here protested the Vietnam War as unrighteous. Well, not sure what was so unrighteous about defending our ally South Vietnam from being run over by communist expansion.

You get that everyone? The commie college protests, with hollywood glorified the commies and attacked big bad America. Highlighted by Hanoi Jane giving aid and comfort to the communists. Like the treasonous cunnt she is.

No, the mass media controls our thoughts and they have been traitorous scumbags for many years now.

The whole Iraq situation is a clear example of that. They shape our thoughts and dictate how to think.

Watch this and see how a scumbag treasonous "news" outlet like CNN does it.



Yes, there is power in words and how things are labeled. The sheep just follow along.

Quick Quiz:

There is one (1) person on the planet with the authority to send American troops to war. Who is it

1. The current Commander in Chief of the United States of America
2. The New York Times
3. Commie college protests
4. The Mass Media
5. Bill Clinton
6. Congress

Go ahead.
.

It was Hillary's fault

Once Hillary voted in favor, Bush followed her advice