no WMD's in Iraq?????????????

OK, Clinton was also an idiot. Happy now? There is no difference in both parties' behavior, they just like to pretend they're different, but in reality their policies are the same. Now Bush 43 didn't get the job done, neither did Obama. Irak will deteriorate again with time. I don't know why we keep wasting our tax dollars trying to bring democracies to people that don't want it.

because were shipped to Syeria, very simple for most people Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

because they were old shit before the Gulf War and destroyed after the Gulf War ... following that all of the sanctions put on Iraq ket the country so poor saddam couldnt buy a pencil much less fork out big $$ for 500 tons of sarin

very simple for most people

because were shipped to Syeria, very simple for most people Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

Grammar, grammar, Cap'n! You should have typed: "Easy for most simple-minded people."

Syeria [sic]? Really?

Relax, Liberals! It just shows how easy it is for FAUX to fool the Dumb Asses that were shameless fiscal liberals under Bush but who claimed they were conservatives while they lost two elections as Republicans and then decided to steal the Tea Party name from Ron Paul to get a "do-over" in 2010 and 2012!

Remember when they first stole that name from Paul? They were all about being "different" from other parties and now they are so interchangeable with Republicans that they vote in the same primaries in most states and ALWAY vote with Republicans! What lying pieces of shit!

I call them Teapublicans. They and their Republican co-conspirators have voted over 30 times on hopeless bills to repeal the AHCA and in state legislatures have passed dozens of unconstitutional Voter ID laws with no evidence of even moderate voter fraud. Add to that, the attack to reverse 50 years of insurance companies paying for birth control pills and you can pretty well state what nothingness the Teapublicans have done to stimulate the economy and create jobs!

What stupid losers! Look at the attempted focus on the non-issues like trying to prove Bush did not lie about Iraqi WMDS and start two needless wars to prop up and profiteer for the military-industrial complex.

OK, Clinton was also an idiot. Happy now? There is no difference in both parties' behavior, they just like to pretend they're different, but in reality their policies are the same. Now Bush 43 didn't get the job done, neither did Obama. Irak will deteriorate again with time. I don't know why we keep wasting our tax dollars trying to bring democracies to people that don't want it. Originally Posted by icuminpeace

Bush 41 achieved his primary war aim; Iraq was expelled from Kuwait. Clinton was wrong about WMD, and Bush 43 was wrong about WMD. But it was Odumbo who left the battlefield in the control of the other belligerent.

What stupid losers! Look at the attempted focus on the non-issues like trying to prove Bush did not lie about Iraqi WMDS and start two needless wars to prop up and profiteer for the military-industrial complex.
Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Little Blind Boy, when is your dumb-ass going to acknowledge 9-11 was an act of war initiated by bin Laden and not by Bush 41; especially since it's a well documented fact that bin Laden declared war on the U.S. in 1996:

Praise be to Allah">
DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST THE AMERICANS OCCUPYING
THE LAND OF THE TWO HOLY PLACES . . . . And our last supplication is: All praise is due to Allah .


Usamah bin Muhammad bin Laden
Friday, 9/4/1417 A.H (23/8/1996 CE) Hindukush Mountains, Khurasan, Afghanistan.


Furthermore, nothing your dumb-ass has ever posted has proved "Bush lied".

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."


Iraq is rebuilding nuclear facilities at former sites.


Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there
IAEA report to UN Security Council � 1/27/2003



We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

Iraq�s Saddam Hussein �refused to allow UN inspectors into Iraq

Not True

UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003

I was in favor of invading Iraq way back when Bill Clinton told me they had WMDs.

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."

Bush speech to the nation � 10/7/2002

Iraq is rebuilding nuclear facilities at former sites.

Not True

Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there
IAEA report to UN Security Council � 1/27/2003 Originally Posted by CJ7

The WMD Commission and Butler report concluded that based on the operational intel available to the decision makers at the time, it was reasonable to deduce that Saddam was reconstituting his WMD program. Furthermore, a senior-expert CIA analyst matter-of-factly -- but incorrectly -- determined that the aluminum tubes were components for reconstituting Saddam's nuclear WMD program.

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
Iraq has attempted to purchase metal tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

State of the Union Address � 1/28/2003

Iraq has attempted to purchase metal tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production

Not True

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war. Originally Posted by CJ7

The WMD Commission and Butler report concluded that based on the operational intel available to the decision makers at the time, it was reasonable to deduce that Saddam was reconstituting his WMD program. Furthermore, a senior-expert CIA analyst matter-of-factly -- but incorrectly -- determined that the aluminum tubes were components for reconstituting Saddam's nuclear WMD program.

You moron, IIBH (or as someone who posts here regularly says, maroon - a slap at TAMU?), all of this on the side bs still can't change the fact that they weren't THERE.

I know there's a fence post nearby, go argue with that. It's closer to your skill level and shares the same devotion to whatever point of view the Fauxies nailed to it.

You moron, IIBH (or as someone who posts here regularly says, maroon - a slap at TAMU?), all of this on the side bs still can't change the fact that they weren't THERE.

I know there's a fence post nearby, go argue with that. It's closer to your skill level and shares the same devotion to whatever point of view the Fauxies nailed to it. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

You nailed it, R4C! They are truly IDIOTS engaging in factless tirades. It is comical to watch as they try to distract from revealing their stupidity in continuing to support all the discredited allegations proven false so many times over!

You nailed it, R4C! They are truly IDIOTS engaging in factless tirades. It is comical to watch as they try to distract from revealing their stupidity in continuing to support all the discredited allegations proven false so many times over!
Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Almost everything your stupid-ass has posted has been proven to be preposterous lies, Little Blind Boy.

You moron, IIBH (or as someone who posts here regularly says, maroon - a slap at TAMU?), all of this on the side bs still can't change the fact that they weren't THERE.

I know there's a fence post nearby, go argue with that. It's closer to your skill level and shares the same devotion to whatever point of view the Fauxies nailed to it. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

That's a bald ass lie, Randy4Andy. Saddam did manufacture and use WMD against the Kurds and Iranians. It's documented history.

Of course it's documented history and for 8 years (according the the chart provided by IB), the US administrations decided to ignore what Saddam was doing. Why? Because he was considered our ally and as long as he was playing nice with us, he could do whatever he wanted. After Kuwait, he become the enemy and all of a sudden we became concerned about what he did under our noses. That's the hypocrisy I do not tolerate.

Of course it's documented history and for 8 years (according the the chart provided by IB), the US administrations decided to ignore what Saddam was doing. Why? Because he was considered our ally and as long as he was playing nice with us, he could do whatever he wanted. After Kuwait, he become the enemy and all of a sudden we became concerned about what he did under our noses. That's the hypocrisy I do not tolerate. Originally Posted by icuminpeace

What you call "hypocrisy" is actually pragmatic diplomacy, or "Realpolitik"; wherein politics is based on practical and material factors and considerations, and not on ideological notions or moralistic or ethical premises. At that particular place and time, would you have had the U.S. align with Iran? Furthermore, the preamble to the Constitution makes no mention of putting another nation's interest before the interests of U.S. citizens:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . ."

Pragmatism has often forced state leaders to form distasteful alliances. For example, the thirteen colonies rebelling against an autocratic monarchy in Great Britain to create an independent republic wouldn't have been successful without aligning with Spain and especially France: two other autocratic monarchies. Similarly, the U.S. probably would not have been successful in WWII if it had not allied with Stalin's Soviet Union. If you doubt that, you need only to look at the divisions Hitler devoted fighting the Soviets on the Eastern Front.

IB - I totally understand the why, I can be sarcastic in my postings, but that doesn't mean I see the world's problems from a simplistic point of view. The problem is those distasteful alliances will always break and we'll have to fix a bigger mess later. There are very few countries around the world that I would consider our allies. The rest just want a handout from us while stabbing us in the back. So, in my opinion, let them figure it out themselves. I'm sure we could save a lot of money to reduce our deficits and pay down our debt.