Iraq: The Bush Legacy

Ghadaffi tried to assassinate the King of KSA.. Saudi Arabia didn't declare war on Libya.

Some people are simply stupid.

 

He was removed because the Bush administration mislead us to think they *knew* Iraq had WMD when they knew no such thing and in fact it did not.

After the UN inspectors spent months scouring Iraq with unfettered access to the whole country and made hundreds of unannounced, spot inspections, finding no evidence of the WMD that the Bush administation claimed they knew he had -- which was new information that Clinton and the Congress did not have when he was president and they voted for the joint authorization -- any prudent leader would have reassessed the situation and the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) intel they relied upon. But the Bush administration did not. We had neocons in power in the administratino that were committed to invade Iraq regardless and rushed us to war on the bogus, made up lie that Hussein was an "urgent" threat because of his supposed WMD and corroboration with Al Quaida, neither of which was true.

And we wasted scores of thousands of lives and a trillion plus dollars listening to people like you and your right wing "Frontpagemagazine" and NYJT.

 

Iriemon... Congratulations. You have whipped your opposition here like a rented mule.

 

Prove that in fact they knew he did not, cite the evidence that was handed him that disproved what the Clinton administration told him.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and since ISG found things they didn't have a clue about.................fail.

Cite where Blix claimed Saddam was in complete compliance and that no WMD existed in Iraq. Do bother you can't he never did. And once again what were they looking for if they knew he did not have any as you claim? Why did UNSCOM want to continue "inspecting" if they knew and had told everyone Saddam had no WMD.

And why do you still have the mistaken notion that the WMD Saddam posed had ONLY to do with the WMD UNSCOM had cataloged and were looking for?

You seem to forget this

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

- - - Updated - - -

He hasn't refute a single thing and has been unable to prove his own claims. And you both continue to ignore what we DID find, that the Blix Keystone Cops didn't and never would have

New Documents Reveal Saddam Hid WMD, Was Tied to Al Qaida

Case closed!Recently discovered Iraqi documents now being translated by U.S. intelligence analysts indicate that Saddam Hussein's government made extensive plans to hide Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 - and had deep ties to al Qaida before the 9/11 attacks.

The explosive evidence was discovered among "millions of pages of documents" unearthed by the Iraq Survey Group weapons search team, reports the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes.

In the magazine's Nov. 21 issue, Hayes reveals that the document cache now being examined contains "a thick stew of reports and findings from a variety of [Iraqi] intelligence agencies and military units."

Though the Pentagon has so far declined to make the bombshell papers public, Hayes managed to obtain a list of titles on the reports.

Topics headlined in the still embargoed Iraqi documents include:

• Chemical Agent Purchase Orders (Dec. 2001)

• Formulas and information about Iraq's Chemical Weapons Agents

• Locations of Weapons/Ammunition Storage (with map)

• Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs

• Ricin research and improvement

• Chemical Gear for Fedayeen Saddam

• Memo from the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)

• Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team

• Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment

• Correspondence from [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to [the Military Industrial Commission] regarding information gathered by foreign intelligence satellites on WMD (Dec. 2002) • Cleaning chemical suits and how to hide chemicals

• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] plan of what to do during UNSCOM inspections (1996)

Still other reports suggest that Iraq's ties to al Qaida were far deeper than previously known, featuring headlines like:

• Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government (Nov. 2000)

• Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity

• Possible al Qaeda Terror Members in Iraq

• Iraqi Effort to Cooperate with Saudi Opposition Groups and Individuals

• Iraqi Intel report on Kurdish Activities: Mention of Kurdish Report on al Qaeda - reference to al Qaeda presence in Salman Pak

• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] report on Taliban-Iraq Connections Claims

• Money Transfers from Iraq to Afghanistan

While the document titles sound stunning enough to turn the Iraq war debate on its head, Hayes cautions that it's hard to know for certain until the full text is available.

It's possible, he writes, "that the 'Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity' was critical of one or another Taliban policies. But it's equally possible, given Uday's known role as a go-between for the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda, that something more nefarious was afoot."

"What was discussed at the 'Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government' in November 2000? It could be something innocuous. Maybe not. But it would be nice to know more."

Hayes also notes that an additional treasure trove of evidence on Saddam Hussein's support for al Qaida may be lost forever.

"When David Kay ran the Iraq Survey Group searching for weapons of mass destruction, he instructed his team to ignore anything not directly related to the regime's WMD efforts," he reports.

"As a consequence, documents describing the regime's training and financing of terrorists were labeled 'No Intelligence Value' and often discarded, according to two sources."
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=3273

 

I never said the Bush administration knew Iraq had WMD. I said "the Bush administration mislead us to think they *knew* Iraq had WMD when they knew no such thing"

Prove your own straw man.

Sure it is evidence of absence.

After the UN inspectors spent months scouring Iraq with unfettered access to the whole country and made hundreds of unannounced, spot inspections, finding no evidence of the WMD that the Bush administation claimed they knew he had -- which was new information that Clinton and the Congress did not have when he was president and they voted for the joint authorization -- any prudent leader would have reassessed the situation and the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) intel they relied upon. But the Bush administration did not. We had neocons in power in the administratino that were committed to invade Iraq regardless and rushed us to war on the bogus, made up lie that Hussein was an "urgent" threat because of his supposed WMD and corroboration with Al Quaida, neither of which was true.

And we wasted scores of thousands of lives and a trillion plus dollars listening to people like you and your right wing "Frontpagemagazine" and NYJT.

I never stated that Blix claimed Iraq was in complete compliance. Prove your own straw man.

Iraq did not have the WMD the Bush administration invaded and occupied Iraq for.

Al Gore was wrong.

Quite the contrary.

 

Tricky D1cky said it.

But he saw dollar bills later on and changed his mindless mind.

- - - Updated - - -

Fully refuted. In fact Saddam was AQ's biggest enemy. His death led to its resurgence thanks to Republican Bush.

 

I didn't say you did. You claimed they knew he did not, prove it. What clear convincing evidence was given to the Bush adminstration proving beyond doubt that Saddam had no ready to go WMD. Then prove the same that he was in complete and full compliance with all the UN resolutions or admit he was not. Then the same that he had no proscribe WMD materials and had no plans to rearm himself, or admit that he did and would have.

Nope, logical fallacy.

Already refuted

They hadn't found them when Clinton was President, that UNSCOM was a joke and incapable of doing the job was not new information.

No reassesment needed the prior one was still valid, as long as Saddam was in power he remained a WMD threat and that he would never cooperate with UNSCOM and that he was hiding things from them. All was borne out by what we found after we removed him.


But the Bush administration did not. We had neocons in power in the administratino that were committed to invade Iraq regardless and rushed us to war on the bogus, made up lie that Hussein was an "urgent" threat because of his supposed WMD and corroboration with Al Quaida, neither of which was true.

Tell me why you place such faith in UNSCOM who after 5 years of unfettered access failed to find all the proscribe materials Saddam had hidden and never were able to account for all the WMD they themselves had cataloged he had?

It didn't take scores of lives to remove Saddam, it was done with relatively few lives lost, you are confusing the war with al Qaeda that followed with the removal of Saddam. And we won both wars in case you didn't hear.

Then you admit he wasn't. Thanks for proving the point, that's why he was removed. He would never be in compliance, he would soon be out from under the sanctions to do as he pleased and we could not allow that to happen as both the Clinton and Bush administrations determined and was borne out by what we found after his removal. I fully documented that and you have yet to refute a scintilla of it.

First they the reason we invaded did not begin and end with those unaccounted for WMD, second we still don't know for sure what happened to them, third he would have rearmed within a matter of months if not weeks with the WMD materials Blix could not find.

ROFL on now isn't that rich, Bush lied and misled but Gore was just wrong. So Gore could have believed it and be wrong but according to you Bush knew. The fact is both were wrong as proven by what we found and as I already documented.

Really, then refute the fact we found hidden cache's of highly concentrated organophosphates, which could have been used in a WMD chemcial attack on their, in camoflagued underground bunkers at his munitions dumps along with new chemical weapons shells, all undeclared and hidden from inspectors.

Refute what I posted under the "New Documents Reveal Saddam Hid WMD, Was Tied to Al Qaida"

 

Good lord. You just make (*)(*)(*)(*) up as you go along because you can't make an argument honestly. Try to show a shred of intellectual honesty. Quote where I claimed that Bush administration knew that Iraq did not have WMD.

Not at all. The fact that UN inspectors spent months making hundreds of unannounced inspections all over the country is certainly evidence that Iraq did not have the WMDs the Bush administration said they knew he had.

They weren't there when Clinton was president either.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I completely disagree.

But the Bush administration did not. We had neocons in power in the administratino that were committed to invade Iraq regardless and rushed us to war on the bogus, made up lie that Hussein was an "urgent" threat because of his supposed WMD and corroboration with Al Quaida, neither of which was true.

They didn't have 5 years of unfettered access. They did starting in very late 2002 and early 2003 until Bush invaded.

Your neocon war lead to the unnecessary deaths of scores of thousands.

False dichotomy. Blix reported that they had found no evidence of the WMDs but were still investigating and could make the determination within a few more months.

But Bush and the neocons were in a rush to war.

You've already given your opinion on that. I've already given you Bush's own words contradicting your claim.

I didn't say Bush mislead Gore, but it is probable.

Already done by the words of Bush as well has is Iraq WMD investigator, Kay, who you relied on.

Already done.


On January 23, 2004, Kay resigned, stating that Iraq did not have WMD and that "I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kay

Now, look, I didn’t — part of the reason we went into Iraq was — the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, ... President Bush, Aug 22, 2006. http://www.democracynow.org/2006/8/22/president_bush_admits_iraq_had_no

 

Hans Blix said there were no WMD in Iraq.

Traitor Bush ignored his warnings because he wanted a war to profit his business interests. See Downing Street Memo

 

Yesterday on Minneapolis radio station WCCO former governor and conservative Jesse Ventura said that traitor Bush was the worst president he has ever seen.

Anyone who views this matter objectively will have no choice but to agree.

 

Amen brother.

 

Iraq: The Bush Legacy

ISIS: The Obama Legacy

 

I am a conservative and an athiest, I know LOTS of conservative athiest and I know LOTS of progressive Christians and others of religious faith.

What morals do you believe you have, what since of justice do you believe you have that I do not. That are unique to and indicative of Christians or those of religious faith?

 

correction: Republican McCain legacy:

 

You may not realize it, or you may not care to admit it, but whatever good morals atheists in America or Western Europe have are the result of them growing up in a Judeo-Christian society. You may intellectually reject God now, but your morals are in large part the result of the society you grew up in.

 

So you can't answer the question I see. What morals of which you speak that are unique to and indicative of Christians?

They have been parts of all sorts of societies of all sorts of beliefs and do not require in believing that supernatural beings will punish us if we do not obey.

Tell me if it were proven beyond doubt to you that such supernatural beings do not exist you then believe it OK to go out and rape and murder and steal from other people? Is it only the threat of a supernatural being that keeps you from doing so? If we made an archelogical find of the last home of Moses and inside a scroll detailing how he snuck that tablet he had chiseled up on the mound and started a brush fire and then came back and fooled people into believing he had talked to god and god have given hime the tablet that we would do away with laws against murder and robbery and rape and stealing?

I don't think so and there are lots of teachings throughout various civilizations that have nothing to do with such faiths that teach such valuable moral beliefs and our society does so without it being because of the 10 commandments, toss them aside and we would still have laws protecting and enforce such moral beliefs. Having moral beliefs does NOT require belief in supernatural beings who are going to punish us if we do not obey them.