Would ANY Bush Basher care to refute these statements???

[Camp]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question:
Why would Saddam resist certifying his WMDs were destroyed if it would save his control over Iraq and 100,000 starving children a year?

Because your lack of knowledge on this topic is just boring. It was answered long ago.

foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/fbi-interviews-saddam-bluffed-wmd-fear-iran/

cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/02/fbi.saddam.hussein.interview/

 

[healthmyths]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question:
Why would Saddam resist certifying his WMDs were destroyed if it would save his control over Iraq and 100,000 starving children a year?

Because your lack of knowledge on this topic is just boring. It was answered long ago.

foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/fbi-interviews-saddam-bluffed-wmd-fear-iran/

cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/02/fbi.saddam.hussein.interview/

Of course he was BLUFFING!!! He didn't think Bush would follow through!
I read these articles LONG before YOU did!

AND you still didn't get the point!

EVERYONE EVERYONE did NOT want to run the risk though that he WAS bluffing!
I mean idiots like you would. But with all factors considered, NOT to Liberate Iraq JUST because you "believed" inspectors who didn't get to inspect completely
would be so negligent that IF Saddam did use as he did on 50,000 kurds WMDs how would you be perceived?

IF IRAN knew he was bluffing they would have taken over ASAP!

So again IF Bush KNEW he was bluffing then there was totally nominal risk WMDs would be used on US troops.
Remember idiots like you forget 28 million people were very very glad the USA Liberated Iraq and here is the proof!

"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ...
Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves.
Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq.
And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein --
the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

 

[Siete]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question:
Why would Saddam resist certifying his WMDs were destroyed if it would save his control over Iraq and 100,000 starving children a year?

Because your lack of knowledge on this topic is just boring. It was answered long ago.

foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/fbi-interviews-saddam-bluffed-wmd-fear-iran/

cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/02/fbi.saddam.hussein.interview/

Of course he was BLUFFING!!! He didn't think Bush would follow through!
I read these articles LONG before YOU did!

AND you still didn't get the point!

EVERYONE EVERYONE did NOT want to run the risk though that he WAS bluffing!
I mean idiots like you would. But with all factors considered, NOT to Liberate Iraq JUST because you "believed" inspectors who didn't get to inspect completely
would be so negligent that IF Saddam did use as he did on 50,000 kurds WMDs how would you be perceived?

IF IRAN knew he was bluffing they would have taken over ASAP!

So again IF Bush KNEW he was bluffing then there was totally nominal risk WMDs would be used on US troops.
Remember idiots like you forget 28 million people were very very glad the USA Liberated Iraq and here is the proof!

"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ...
Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves.
Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq.
And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein --
the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

what does Bush talking shit have to do with UN sanctions that were imposed in 1991?

 

[healthmyths]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question:
Why would Saddam resist certifying his WMDs were destroyed if it would save his control over Iraq and 100,000 starving children a year?

Because your lack of knowledge on this topic is just boring. It was answered long ago.

foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/fbi-interviews-saddam-bluffed-wmd-fear-iran/

cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/02/fbi.saddam.hussein.interview/

Of course he was BLUFFING!!! He didn't think Bush would follow through!
I read these articles LONG before YOU did!

AND you still didn't get the point!

EVERYONE EVERYONE did NOT want to run the risk though that he WAS bluffing!
I mean idiots like you would. But with all factors considered, NOT to Liberate Iraq JUST because you "believed" inspectors who didn't get to inspect completely
would be so negligent that IF Saddam did use as he did on 50,000 kurds WMDs how would you be perceived?

IF IRAN knew he was bluffing they would have taken over ASAP!

So again IF Bush KNEW he was bluffing then there was totally nominal risk WMDs would be used on US troops.
Remember idiots like you forget 28 million people were very very glad the USA Liberated Iraq and here is the proof!

"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ...
Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves.
Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq.
And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein --
the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

what does Bush talking shit have to do with UN sanctions that were imposed in 1991?

Pretty simple!
When 9/11 occurred Almost all Americans including my self were very very anxious.
Especially when a week later after 9/11 anthrax attacks killed 5 people.
Later when most Americans learned Saddam ordered people to cheer the 9/11 killings AND that Saddam had WMDs consisting of anthrax it
created even more distrust of Saddam especially when Saddam allowed 576,000 children to starve just because HE would not certify WMDs
were destroyed! So if Saddam refused to certify WMDs were destroyed in spite of 576,000 starved children, the natural common sense conclusion
is Saddam HAD WMDs and would use them!
So if you consider Bush talking shit... 90% of All americans agreed!
We were pissed that someone like Saddam who ignored the 1991 Cease Fire and begging to be deposed because Saddam wouldn't certify
WMDs destruction would cheer 9/11.

Only traitors like you also cheered Saddam and 9/11 would think what 90% of us and Bush were talking as "shit". Of course it was "shit" to
people like you that were happy 9/11 occurred. That were happy that Anthrax attacks occurred. I am glad WE (90%) of Americans were talking
shit to shit heads like YOU!

 

[sealybobo]

A) Did these DEMOCRATS make these statements MANY before Bush was President? YES or NO!
Democrat Quotes on WMD
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
oppressive regime .... to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
.... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
“So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interest of our nation.
A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war. It is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands
of our president.”
Hillary Clinton on October 2, 2002

Clinton signed this ACT and proceeded to bomb Iraq!
Saddam continued to defy UN, USA the rest of the world.

The 1998 Liberation of Iraq, SIGNED by CLINTON, and the Congress passed Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)
"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

So with the backdrop of 9/11 and the murder of 3,000 people of the worst attack on American soil EVER..
given all the issues with Saddam PLUS many of you forget the tremendous anxiety of the Anthrax attacks that seven days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, anonymous letters laced with deadly anthrax spores began arriving at media companies and congressional offices. Over the ensuing months, five people died from inhaling anthrax and 17 others were infected after exposure.Feb 15, 2011
NO ONE KNEW where these came from BUT we did KNOW Saddam had the following bioweapons:
Of these, three — anthrax, botulinum and aflatoxin— had proceeded to weaponization for deployment.
Iraqi biological weapons program - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

All of you great minds with the benefit of HINDSIGHT... YOU tell me if you were President and the above
DEMOCRATS were pushing you to remove Saddam because proof of Saddam's ability to delivery and therefore use WMDs was irrefutable!
YOU tell me what you would have done!!

George W Bush 8216 No Regrets 8217 over Decision to Invade Iraq Mediaite

 

[sealybobo]

What about this statement?

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

Barack Obama October 2 2002

How did he know???? How did HE know MORE then the CIA/DOJ, M6, Interpol,etc... UN??? UN didn't know for sure Iraq wasn't a threat.
Besides Bush NEVER said Iraq was an IMMINENT THREAT and BUSH agreed with Obama!

Here is WHAT Bush said...
[Briefing Room The White House"] Briefing Room The White House

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent.
Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?
If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.
Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

God we wish Saddam was still in charge now.

Remember Bush didn't just lie about WMD's. In 2003, a number of officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz suggested the war could be done on the cheap and that it would largely pay for itself. Rumsfeld told a press conference the bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis -- from oil revenues, recovered assets, international trade, direct foreign investment, as well as some contributions we've already received and hope to receive from the international community."

In April 2003, the Pentagon said the war would cost about $2 billion a month, and in July of that year Rumsfeld increased that estimate to $4 billion. What happened? The Iraq war cost about $800 billion, or about $7.6 billion a month. When long term benefits are paid out connected with the death and injury of US troops there, the number is expected to rise to about $1 trillion, or about $9.5 billion a month. About $60 billion was spent directly on Iraq reconstruction efforts.

Saying 4 billion and the number ends up being 10 billion a month? You mother fuckers!

 

[Siete]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question:
Why would Saddam resist certifying his WMDs were destroyed if it would save his control over Iraq and 100,000 starving children a year?

Because your lack of knowledge on this topic is just boring. It was answered long ago.

foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/fbi-interviews-saddam-bluffed-wmd-fear-iran/

cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/02/fbi.saddam.hussein.interview/

Of course he was BLUFFING!!! He didn't think Bush would follow through!
I read these articles LONG before YOU did!

AND you still didn't get the point!

EVERYONE EVERYONE did NOT want to run the risk though that he WAS bluffing!
I mean idiots like you would. But with all factors considered, NOT to Liberate Iraq JUST because you "believed" inspectors who didn't get to inspect completely
would be so negligent that IF Saddam did use as he did on 50,000 kurds WMDs how would you be perceived?

IF IRAN knew he was bluffing they would have taken over ASAP!

So again IF Bush KNEW he was bluffing then there was totally nominal risk WMDs would be used on US troops.
Remember idiots like you forget 28 million people were very very glad the USA Liberated Iraq and here is the proof!

"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ...
Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves.
Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq.
And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein --
the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

what does Bush talking shit have to do with UN sanctions that were imposed in 1991?

Pretty simple!
When 9/11 occurred Almost all Americans including my self were very very anxious.
Especially when a week later after 9/11 anthrax attacks killed 5 people.
Later when most Americans learned Saddam ordered people to cheer the 9/11 killings AND that Saddam had WMDs consisting of anthrax it
created even more distrust of Saddam especially when Saddam allowed 576,000 children to starve just because HE would not certify WMDs
were destroyed! So if Saddam refused to certify WMDs were destroyed in spite of 576,000 starved children, the natural common sense conclusion
is Saddam HAD WMDs and would use them!
So if you consider Bush talking shit... 90% of All americans agreed!
We were pissed that someone like Saddam who ignored the 1991 Cease Fire and begging to be deposed because Saddam wouldn't certify
WMDs destruction would cheer 9/11.

Only traitors like you also cheered Saddam and 9/11 would think what 90% of us and Bush were talking as "shit". Of course it was "shit" to
people like you that were happy 9/11 occurred. That were happy that Anthrax attacks occurred. I am glad WE (90%) of Americans were talking
shit to shit heads like YOU!

you, and your fellow idiots who are like you, are full of shit. Lets start with this thread and its title.

.

 

[sealybobo]

Don't forget too that in 1994 Chaney knew invading Baghdad would cause a quagmire. So one can only assume that they wanted a quagmire when they invaded in 2003. Why would they want a quagmire? Because Haloburton would get rich. Chaney's company. And bush is an oil man. No surprise Iraq has oil.

Anyone who defends the GOP is a fool or liar. PERIOD.

 

[CowboyTed]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question:
Why would Saddam resist certifying his WMDs were destroyed if it would save his control over Iraq and 100,000 starving children a year?

Because your lack of knowledge on this topic is just boring. It was answered long ago.

foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/fbi-interviews-saddam-bluffed-wmd-fear-iran/

cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/02/fbi.saddam.hussein.interview/

Of course he was BLUFFING!!! He didn't think Bush would follow through!
I read these articles LONG before YOU did!

AND you still didn't get the point!

EVERYONE EVERYONE did NOT want to run the risk though that he WAS bluffing!
I mean idiots like you would. But with all factors considered, NOT to Liberate Iraq JUST because you "believed" inspectors who didn't get to inspect completely
would be so negligent that IF Saddam did use as he did on 50,000 kurds WMDs how would you be perceived?

IF IRAN knew he was bluffing they would have taken over ASAP!

So again IF Bush KNEW he was bluffing then there was totally nominal risk WMDs would be used on US troops.
Remember idiots like you forget 28 million people were very very glad the USA Liberated Iraq and here is the proof!

"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ...
Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves.
Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq.
And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein --
the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

what does Bush talking shit have to do with UN sanctions that were imposed in 1991?

Pretty simple!
When 9/11 occurred Almost all Americans including my self were very very anxious.
Especially when a week later after 9/11 anthrax attacks killed 5 people.
Later when most Americans learned Saddam ordered people to cheer the 9/11 killings AND that Saddam had WMDs consisting of anthrax it
created even more distrust of Saddam especially when Saddam allowed 576,000 children to starve just because HE would not certify WMDs
were destroyed! So if Saddam refused to certify WMDs were destroyed in spite of 576,000 starved children, the natural common sense conclusion
is Saddam HAD WMDs and would use them!
So if you consider Bush talking shit... 90% of All americans agreed!
We were pissed that someone like Saddam who ignored the 1991 Cease Fire and begging to be deposed because Saddam wouldn't certify
WMDs destruction would cheer 9/11.

Only traitors like you also cheered Saddam and 9/11 would think what 90% of us and Bush were talking as "shit". Of course it was "shit" to
people like you that were happy 9/11 occurred. That were happy that Anthrax attacks occurred. I am glad WE (90%) of Americans were talking
shit to shit heads like YOU!

So you were scared, some one filled your head full of shit.

Bush invaded.

But it is the Liberals fault because they pointed this all out.

 

[Siete]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question:
Why would Saddam resist certifying his WMDs were destroyed if it would save his control over Iraq and 100,000 starving children a year?

Because your lack of knowledge on this topic is just boring. It was answered long ago.

foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/fbi-interviews-saddam-bluffed-wmd-fear-iran/

cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/02/fbi.saddam.hussein.interview/

Of course he was BLUFFING!!! He didn't think Bush would follow through!
I read these articles LONG before YOU did!

AND you still didn't get the point!

EVERYONE EVERYONE did NOT want to run the risk though that he WAS bluffing!
I mean idiots like you would. But with all factors considered, NOT to Liberate Iraq JUST because you "believed" inspectors who didn't get to inspect completely
would be so negligent that IF Saddam did use as he did on 50,000 kurds WMDs how would you be perceived?

IF IRAN knew he was bluffing they would have taken over ASAP!

So again IF Bush KNEW he was bluffing then there was totally nominal risk WMDs would be used on US troops.
Remember idiots like you forget 28 million people were very very glad the USA Liberated Iraq and here is the proof!

"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ...
Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves.
Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq.
And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein --
the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

what does Bush talking shit have to do with UN sanctions that were imposed in 1991?

Pretty simple!
When 9/11 occurred Almost all Americans including my self were very very anxious.
Especially when a week later after 9/11 anthrax attacks killed 5 people.
Later when most Americans learned Saddam ordered people to cheer the 9/11 killings AND that Saddam had WMDs consisting of anthrax it
created even more distrust of Saddam especially when Saddam allowed 576,000 children to starve just because HE would not certify WMDs
were destroyed! So if Saddam refused to certify WMDs were destroyed in spite of 576,000 starved children, the natural common sense conclusion
is Saddam HAD WMDs and would use them!
So if you consider Bush talking shit... 90% of All americans agreed!
We were pissed that someone like Saddam who ignored the 1991 Cease Fire and begging to be deposed because Saddam wouldn't certify
WMDs destruction would cheer 9/11.

Only traitors like you also cheered Saddam and 9/11 would think what 90% of us and Bush were talking as "shit". Of course it was "shit" to
people like you that were happy 9/11 occurred. That were happy that Anthrax attacks occurred. I am glad WE (90%) of Americans were talking
shit to shit heads like YOU!

So you were scared, some one filled your head full of shit.

Bush invaded.

But it is the Liberals fault because they pointed this all out.

scared? Hardly. Concerned ?






YOU DAMN RIGHT !

 

[healthmyths]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question:
Why would Saddam resist certifying his WMDs were destroyed if it would save his control over Iraq and 100,000 starving children a year?

Because your lack of knowledge on this topic is just boring. It was answered long ago.

foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/fbi-interviews-saddam-bluffed-wmd-fear-iran/

cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/02/fbi.saddam.hussein.interview/

Of course he was BLUFFING!!! He didn't think Bush would follow through!
I read these articles LONG before YOU did!

AND you still didn't get the point!

EVERYONE EVERYONE did NOT want to run the risk though that he WAS bluffing!
I mean idiots like you would. But with all factors considered, NOT to Liberate Iraq JUST because you "believed" inspectors who didn't get to inspect completely
would be so negligent that IF Saddam did use as he did on 50,000 kurds WMDs how would you be perceived?

IF IRAN knew he was bluffing they would have taken over ASAP!

So again IF Bush KNEW he was bluffing then there was totally nominal risk WMDs would be used on US troops.
Remember idiots like you forget 28 million people were very very glad the USA Liberated Iraq and here is the proof!

"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ...
Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves.
Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq.
And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein --
the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

what does Bush talking shit have to do with UN sanctions that were imposed in 1991?

Pretty simple!
When 9/11 occurred Almost all Americans including my self were very very anxious.
Especially when a week later after 9/11 anthrax attacks killed 5 people.
Later when most Americans learned Saddam ordered people to cheer the 9/11 killings AND that Saddam had WMDs consisting of anthrax it
created even more distrust of Saddam especially when Saddam allowed 576,000 children to starve just because HE would not certify WMDs
were destroyed! So if Saddam refused to certify WMDs were destroyed in spite of 576,000 starved children, the natural common sense conclusion
is Saddam HAD WMDs and would use them!
So if you consider Bush talking shit... 90% of All americans agreed!
We were pissed that someone like Saddam who ignored the 1991 Cease Fire and begging to be deposed because Saddam wouldn't certify
WMDs destruction would cheer 9/11.

Only traitors like you also cheered Saddam and 9/11 would think what 90% of us and Bush were talking as "shit". Of course it was "shit" to
people like you that were happy 9/11 occurred. That were happy that Anthrax attacks occurred. I am glad WE (90%) of Americans were talking
shit to shit heads like YOU!

you, and your fellow idiots who are like you, are full of shit. Lets start with this thread and its title.

.

Wow! What a well thought out and DEEPLY affective response!
Typical of what junior high student might produce!
Sad you are representative of the typical illiterate!

 

[Camp]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question:
Why would Saddam resist certifying his WMDs were destroyed if it would save his control over Iraq and 100,000 starving children a year?

Because your lack of knowledge on this topic is just boring. It was answered long ago.

foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/fbi-interviews-saddam-bluffed-wmd-fear-iran/

cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/02/fbi.saddam.hussein.interview/

Of course he was BLUFFING!!! He didn't think Bush would follow through!
I read these articles LONG before YOU did!

AND you still didn't get the point!

EVERYONE EVERYONE did NOT want to run the risk though that he WAS bluffing!
I mean idiots like you would. But with all factors considered, NOT to Liberate Iraq JUST because you "believed" inspectors who didn't get to inspect completely
would be so negligent that IF Saddam did use as he did on 50,000 kurds WMDs how would you be perceived?

IF IRAN knew he was bluffing they would have taken over ASAP!

So again IF Bush KNEW he was bluffing then there was totally nominal risk WMDs would be used on US troops.
Remember idiots like you forget 28 million people were very very glad the USA Liberated Iraq and here is the proof!

"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ...
Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves.
Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq.
And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein --
the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

See, no one wanted to answer your question because they knew you would deflect and ignore the answer. That is exactly what you did. You claimed you read the articles before I did. How in the world would you know that? Why would anyone give you any kind of credibility when you make comments like that. You are claiming to know when I read articles that were written in 2009. You add that you have some superhuman knowledge that "EVERYONE EVERYONE" , (your double use and cap's) is in agreement with your analysis, opinion and conclusion and people apparently should not be held responsible for falling for or not recognizing when they are being bluffed. Your dopey ideas fail for two major reasons. One, you admit that Bush took us to war on a gamble and two, people called it a bluff, but Bush ignored the folks who told him not to gamble, but instead to wait.

 

[CowboyTed]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question:
Why would Saddam resist certifying his WMDs were destroyed if it would save his control over Iraq and 100,000 starving children a year?

Because your lack of knowledge on this topic is just boring. It was answered long ago.

foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/fbi-interviews-saddam-bluffed-wmd-fear-iran/

cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/02/fbi.saddam.hussein.interview/

Of course he was BLUFFING!!! He didn't think Bush would follow through!
I read these articles LONG before YOU did!

AND you still didn't get the point!

EVERYONE EVERYONE did NOT want to run the risk though that he WAS bluffing!
I mean idiots like you would. But with all factors considered, NOT to Liberate Iraq JUST because you "believed" inspectors who didn't get to inspect completely
would be so negligent that IF Saddam did use as he did on 50,000 kurds WMDs how would you be perceived?

IF IRAN knew he was bluffing they would have taken over ASAP!

So again IF Bush KNEW he was bluffing then there was totally nominal risk WMDs would be used on US troops.
Remember idiots like you forget 28 million people were very very glad the USA Liberated Iraq and here is the proof!

"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ...
Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves.
Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq.
And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein --
the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

See, no one wanted to answer your question because they knew you would deflect and ignore the answer. That is exactly what you did. You claimed you read the articles before I did. How in the world would you know that? Why would anyone give you any kind of credibility when you make comments like that. You are claiming to know when I read articles that were written in 2009. You add that you have some superhuman knowledge that "EVERYONE EVERYONE" , (your double use and cap's) is in agreement with your analysis, opinion and conclusion and people apparently should not be held responsible for falling for or not recognizing when they are being bluffed. Your dopey ideas fail for two major reasons. One, you admit that Bush took us to war on a gamble and two, people called it a bluff, but Bush ignored the folks who told him not to gamble, but instead to wait.

I think Saddam slept soundly in the knowledge no one was stupid enough to invade and awaken the hornets nest which was Iraq. He probably thought that George H. Bush knew that and he will tell the son and he will listen.
Even the most rudimentary analysis on Iraq could have told the President that this place is a mess of religion and corruption and wasn't ready for democracy.

That was Saddam's mistake, he over estimated the Bush Administration. He wasn't the first.

But you have got to give it the the Conservatives here, even the crap that was the Bush Administration they will try and grow roses. Bush was a disaster on so many fronts, fiscally he took a surplus to a record deficit, foreign policy (the bush administration was considered childlike, arrogant and generally despised. The had very little respect worldwide), increased surveillance on US Citizens,... And they still defend the Administration.

When you ask them why they hate Obama, actual facts, they have next to nothing compared to Bush. Obamacare is going to save money, might not be perfect but better than before. Foreign Policy, he has been generally restrained. Actually did something about immigration after years of waiting for congress to do something... While I could understand they might not be wild about him, he didn't go off into a half cocked war spending Trillions and getting hundreds of thousands killed with no end game.

 

[TooTall]

The UN SANCTIONS put in place by the UN simply asked Saddam "please certify you don't have WMDs" continued while Saddam let 576,000 children starve!
In five years 576,000 children starved BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
The sanctions were imposed by the Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Led by the United States, the Council has rejected many Iraqi appeals to lift the restrictions, which have crippled the economy, until Iraq accounts for all its weapons of mass destruction and United Nations inspectors can certify that they have been destroyed in accordance with several Council resolutions.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

NOW you idiots tell me IF Saddam refused to CERTIFY and he obviously didn't care about the starving kids... would you believe he HAD WMDs?
Would you believe his son in law?
A) Saddam was not ready to say he had NO WMDs and willing to let 576,000 kids starve.
B) Saddam WAS proven by the Democrats to having used WMDs on his own people.
C) Saddam was proven to pay $25,000 for suicide terrorists.
D) Ask Saddam's son-in-law...oh wait you can't Saddam killed him when he went back to Iraq... good guy your buddy Saddam!
E) And of course you probably don't agree after 9/11 there was NO need to think Saddam was involved right?
F) Were you aware that Seven days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, anonymous letters laced with deadly anthrax spores began arriving at media companies and congressional offices. Over the ensuing months, five people died from inhaling anthrax and 17 others were infected after exposure. And of course you knew that your buddy Saddam HAD nothing to do with it...even Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

Oddly, Republicans claimed to invade because of UN sanctions

Yet, when that same UN asked them to hold off the invasion until more evidence came in........they ignored them

They invaded because of WMDs. No wait, it was oil. Um...it was UN sanctions. When you decide the reason they invaded, let me know...

OIL...says who?

Are you paying attention??? The plans to invade Iraq were already being discussed 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

What we NOW know from G.W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary, the invasion of Iraq was discussed 10 days into the administration.

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq

Going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq - CBS News

How utterly ignorant you are about what goes on at the Pentagon. I could find at least one document detailing the invasion and occupation of Canada and/or Mexico. That is what they do. Plan for contingencies that they hope they will never have to implement.

Hey pea brain...when those plans are distributed at a White House National Security Council meeting, it is no longer a 'contingency' plan.

The White House National Security Council (NSC) is the principal forum used by the President of the United States for considering national security and foreign policy matters with his senior national security advisors and Cabinet officials and is part of the Executive Office of the President of the United States.[/QUOTE]

The NSC gets a contingency plan from the Pentagon and considers implementing all, some or none of it. I am surprise that a dumbass like you even knew that.

 

[healthmyths]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question:
Why would Saddam resist certifying his WMDs were destroyed if it would save his control over Iraq and 100,000 starving children a year?

Because your lack of knowledge on this topic is just boring. It was answered long ago.

foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/fbi-interviews-saddam-bluffed-wmd-fear-iran/

cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/02/fbi.saddam.hussein.interview/

Of course he was BLUFFING!!! He didn't think Bush would follow through!
I read these articles LONG before YOU did!

AND you still didn't get the point!

EVERYONE EVERYONE did NOT want to run the risk though that he WAS bluffing!
I mean idiots like you would. But with all factors considered, NOT to Liberate Iraq JUST because you "believed" inspectors who didn't get to inspect completely
would be so negligent that IF Saddam did use as he did on 50,000 kurds WMDs how would you be perceived?

IF IRAN knew he was bluffing they would have taken over ASAP!

So again IF Bush KNEW he was bluffing then there was totally nominal risk WMDs would be used on US troops.
Remember idiots like you forget 28 million people were very very glad the USA Liberated Iraq and here is the proof!

"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ...
Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves.
Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq.
And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein --
the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

See, no one wanted to answer your question because they knew you would deflect and ignore the answer. That is exactly what you did. You claimed you read the articles before I did. How in the world would you know that? Why would anyone give you any kind of credibility when you make comments like that. You are claiming to know when I read articles that were written in 2009. You add that you have some superhuman knowledge that "EVERYONE EVERYONE" , (your double use and cap's) is in agreement with your analysis, opinion and conclusion and people apparently should not be held responsible for falling for or not recognizing when they are being bluffed. Your dopey ideas fail for two major reasons. One, you admit that Bush took us to war on a gamble and two, people called it a bluff, but Bush ignored the folks who told him not to gamble, but instead to wait.

You are right about Bush being wrong on something.
He was wrong to trust Democrats.
Bush like me was from Texas where MOST Democrats were when Bush was governor honorable and honest politicians.
Bush thought no one Dem/GOP would ever cause a war to be prolonged.
Bush like me could NOT imagine Americans would call fellow Americans "cold blooded Killers" or "Terrorists" or "civilian killers" or "the war is lost".
Bush like me and most Americans were fooled that traitors like YOU and these people WANTED the war to be prolonged!
You and guys like the below were very happy to help the terrorists as this Harvard study said.."emboldened"!
When these traitors like you encourage the terrorists, the terrorists loved it!

So yes Bush and people like me could NOT believe that traitors like you and the below WANTED to see Americans killed!
Why else would any one much less these political leaders ENCOURAGE the terrorists?

So yes Bush was wrong. He was wrong to think so-called Americans like the below would criticize our troops and in doing so encourage
as this Harvard study the terrorists to kill more Americans.

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
NOTE: You are not that naive to think the terrorists didn't find Kerry calling OUR TROOPS terrorists absolutely EMBOLDENING???

Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ....
to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , JanS. 23. 2003

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

The Harvard Study asked: THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The resounding answer WAS YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent following what the researchers call "high-mention weeks," like the two just before the November 2006 election.
And these statements which idiots like YOU most likely agreed with did everything in the world to encourage recruit and reward the terrorists to continue.

 

[Siete]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question:
Why would Saddam resist certifying his WMDs were destroyed if it would save his control over Iraq and 100,000 starving children a year?

Because your lack of knowledge on this topic is just boring. It was answered long ago.

foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/fbi-interviews-saddam-bluffed-wmd-fear-iran/

cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/02/fbi.saddam.hussein.interview/

Of course he was BLUFFING!!! He didn't think Bush would follow through!
I read these articles LONG before YOU did!

AND you still didn't get the point!

EVERYONE EVERYONE did NOT want to run the risk though that he WAS bluffing!
I mean idiots like you would. But with all factors considered, NOT to Liberate Iraq JUST because you "believed" inspectors who didn't get to inspect completely
would be so negligent that IF Saddam did use as he did on 50,000 kurds WMDs how would you be perceived?

IF IRAN knew he was bluffing they would have taken over ASAP!

So again IF Bush KNEW he was bluffing then there was totally nominal risk WMDs would be used on US troops.
Remember idiots like you forget 28 million people were very very glad the USA Liberated Iraq and here is the proof!

"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ...
Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves.
Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq.
And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein --
the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

See, no one wanted to answer your question because they knew you would deflect and ignore the answer. That is exactly what you did. You claimed you read the articles before I did. How in the world would you know that? Why would anyone give you any kind of credibility when you make comments like that. You are claiming to know when I read articles that were written in 2009. You add that you have some superhuman knowledge that "EVERYONE EVERYONE" , (your double use and cap's) is in agreement with your analysis, opinion and conclusion and people apparently should not be held responsible for falling for or not recognizing when they are being bluffed. Your dopey ideas fail for two major reasons. One, you admit that Bush took us to war on a gamble and two, people called it a bluff, but Bush ignored the folks who told him not to gamble, but instead to wait.

you're facing a major issue.


hm is a dope.

other than that .....

 

[mikegriffith1]

The sooner we conservatives can admit that the Iraq War was a terrible blunder, the better off we will be. Saddam posed no threat to us and the Iraqi people were better off before we invaded. We replaced a corrupt Sunni dictatorship with a corrupt, and more incompetent, Shiite dictatorship. It was a waste of time, blood, and money.

 

[sealybobo]

The sooner we conservatives can admit that the Iraq War was a terrible blunder, the better off we will be. Saddam posed no threat to us and the Iraqi people were better off before we invaded. We replaced a corrupt Sunni dictatorship with a corrupt, and more incompetent, Shiite dictatorship. It was a waste of time, blood, and money.

And Saddam was our Sunni ruler who didn't like Shiite Iran. Now Iraq is run by mostly Shiites and Iran is Shiite, correct? We fucked up big time.

 

[Bfgrn]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question:
Why would Saddam resist certifying his WMDs were destroyed if it would save his control over Iraq and 100,000 starving children a year?

Because your lack of knowledge on this topic is just boring. It was answered long ago.

foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/fbi-interviews-saddam-bluffed-wmd-fear-iran/

cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/02/fbi.saddam.hussein.interview/

Of course he was BLUFFING!!! He didn't think Bush would follow through!
I read these articles LONG before YOU did!

AND you still didn't get the point!

EVERYONE EVERYONE did NOT want to run the risk though that he WAS bluffing!
I mean idiots like you would. But with all factors considered, NOT to Liberate Iraq JUST because you "believed" inspectors who didn't get to inspect completely
would be so negligent that IF Saddam did use as he did on 50,000 kurds WMDs how would you be perceived?

IF IRAN knew he was bluffing they would have taken over ASAP!

So again IF Bush KNEW he was bluffing then there was totally nominal risk WMDs would be used on US troops.
Remember idiots like you forget 28 million people were very very glad the USA Liberated Iraq and here is the proof!

"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ...
Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves.
Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq.
And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein --
the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

See, no one wanted to answer your question because they knew you would deflect and ignore the answer. That is exactly what you did. You claimed you read the articles before I did. How in the world would you know that? Why would anyone give you any kind of credibility when you make comments like that. You are claiming to know when I read articles that were written in 2009. You add that you have some superhuman knowledge that "EVERYONE EVERYONE" , (your double use and cap's) is in agreement with your analysis, opinion and conclusion and people apparently should not be held responsible for falling for or not recognizing when they are being bluffed. Your dopey ideas fail for two major reasons. One, you admit that Bush took us to war on a gamble and two, people called it a bluff, but Bush ignored the folks who told him not to gamble, but instead to wait.

You are right about Bush being wrong on something.
He was wrong to trust Democrats.
Bush like me was from Texas where MOST Democrats were when Bush was governor honorable and honest politicians.
Bush thought no one Dem/GOP would ever cause a war to be prolonged.
Bush like me could NOT imagine Americans would call fellow Americans "cold blooded Killers" or "Terrorists" or "civilian killers" or "the war is lost".
Bush like me and most Americans were fooled that traitors like YOU and these people WANTED the war to be prolonged!
You and guys like the below were very happy to help the terrorists as this Harvard study said.."emboldened"!
When these traitors like you encourage the terrorists, the terrorists loved it!

So yes Bush and people like me could NOT believe that traitors like you and the below WANTED to see Americans killed!
Why else would any one much less these political leaders ENCOURAGE the terrorists?

So yes Bush was wrong. He was wrong to think so-called Americans like the below would criticize our troops and in doing so encourage
as this Harvard study the terrorists to kill more Americans.

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
NOTE: You are not that naive to think the terrorists didn't find Kerry calling OUR TROOPS terrorists absolutely EMBOLDENING???

Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ....
to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , JanS. 23. 2003

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

The Harvard Study asked: THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The resounding answer WAS YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent following what the researchers call "high-mention weeks," like the two just before the November 2006 election.
And these statements which idiots like YOU most likely agreed with did everything in the world to encourage recruit and reward the terrorists to continue.

You are truly a moron. Yea, those terrorists were not "emboldened" by their religion being attacked, Muslims being tortured at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo by Islamophobes like Bush.

AN INTERROGATOR SPEAKS
I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.

Washington Post

 

[healthmyths]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question:
Why would Saddam resist certifying his WMDs were destroyed if it would save his control over Iraq and 100,000 starving children a year?

Because your lack of knowledge on this topic is just boring. It was answered long ago.

foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/fbi-interviews-saddam-bluffed-wmd-fear-iran/

cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/02/fbi.saddam.hussein.interview/

Of course he was BLUFFING!!! He didn't think Bush would follow through!
I read these articles LONG before YOU did!

AND you still didn't get the point!

EVERYONE EVERYONE did NOT want to run the risk though that he WAS bluffing!
I mean idiots like you would. But with all factors considered, NOT to Liberate Iraq JUST because you "believed" inspectors who didn't get to inspect completely
would be so negligent that IF Saddam did use as he did on 50,000 kurds WMDs how would you be perceived?

IF IRAN knew he was bluffing they would have taken over ASAP!

So again IF Bush KNEW he was bluffing then there was totally nominal risk WMDs would be used on US troops.
Remember idiots like you forget 28 million people were very very glad the USA Liberated Iraq and here is the proof!

"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ...
Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves.
Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq.
And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein --
the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

See, no one wanted to answer your question because they knew you would deflect and ignore the answer. That is exactly what you did. You claimed you read the articles before I did. How in the world would you know that? Why would anyone give you any kind of credibility when you make comments like that. You are claiming to know when I read articles that were written in 2009. You add that you have some superhuman knowledge that "EVERYONE EVERYONE" , (your double use and cap's) is in agreement with your analysis, opinion and conclusion and people apparently should not be held responsible for falling for or not recognizing when they are being bluffed. Your dopey ideas fail for two major reasons. One, you admit that Bush took us to war on a gamble and two, people called it a bluff, but Bush ignored the folks who told him not to gamble, but instead to wait.

You are right about Bush being wrong on something.
He was wrong to trust Democrats.
Bush like me was from Texas where MOST Democrats were when Bush was governor honorable and honest politicians.
Bush thought no one Dem/GOP would ever cause a war to be prolonged.
Bush like me could NOT imagine Americans would call fellow Americans "cold blooded Killers" or "Terrorists" or "civilian killers" or "the war is lost".
Bush like me and most Americans were fooled that traitors like YOU and these people WANTED the war to be prolonged!
You and guys like the below were very happy to help the terrorists as this Harvard study said.."emboldened"!
When these traitors like you encourage the terrorists, the terrorists loved it!

So yes Bush and people like me could NOT believe that traitors like you and the below WANTED to see Americans killed!
Why else would any one much less these political leaders ENCOURAGE the terrorists?

So yes Bush was wrong. He was wrong to think so-called Americans like the below would criticize our troops and in doing so encourage
as this Harvard study the terrorists to kill more Americans.

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
NOTE: You are not that naive to think the terrorists didn't find Kerry calling OUR TROOPS terrorists absolutely EMBOLDENING???

Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ....
to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , JanS. 23. 2003

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

The Harvard Study asked: THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The resounding answer WAS YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent following what the researchers call "high-mention weeks," like the two just before the November 2006 election.
And these statements which idiots like YOU most likely agreed with did everything in the world to encourage recruit and reward the terrorists to continue.

You are truly a moron. Yea, those terrorists were not "emboldened" by their religion being attacked, Muslims being tortured at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo by Islamophobes like Bush.

AN INTERROGATOR SPEAKS
I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.

Washington Post

GREAT! YOU are PROVING MY POINT EXACTLY!

The MSM media and idiots like you take two incidents that involved less the 100 people in the military at the most and continually blew it up
every day on the news. Pictures of Abu Ghraib... ALL for what reason???
TO make the USA look BAD!
YOU are 100% right that made the terrorists UPSET! NO f...king QUESTION!
SO why were these pictures published in the first place??? FREEDOM of the Press? Bullshit!

Eleven U.S. soldiers were convicted of crimes relating to the Abu Ghraib scandal. Seven of those were from Maryland-based 372nd Military Police Company. A number of other service members were not charged but reprimanded. Iraq Prison Abuse Scandal Fast Facts - CNN.com
11 out of 2.5 million! And the idiot press along with idiots like YOU blew Abu Ghraib out of gross proportion so BLAME them and YOU for the deaths.
11 people!
Since the U.S. went to war in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, about 2.5 million members of the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard and related Reserve and National Guard units have been deployed in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, according to Department of Defense data. Of those, more than a third were deployed more than once. united states - How many Americans served in the Afgan and Iraq wars from 2001 to 2013 - Skeptics Stack Exchange

But of course IDIOTS like you and these IDIOTS were HAPPY to see 11 people involved and make it sound LIKE the entire military was
involved! The terrorists didn't care if it was just ONE!
When idiots like you and the MSM think ah this is a story we have to get out!!!
YOU ARE KILLING OUR TROOPS!

IDIOTS like YOU... QUESTION!!!
DO YOU THINK if the Japanese military had pictures of these INTERNMENT camps in WWII would have been encouraged???

Or if the USA papers had published EVERY DAY results of firebombing in Dresden in WWII what would the world thought of the USA???

Do you think the ALLIES would have won WWII if pictures like these were plastered EVERY DAY in newspapers?
Or if radio had interviewed survivors of the terrible Firebombing of Dresden by the USA!!!!