as a reward to his totaly incompetant national security advisor, he made her secretary of state. herr bush clearly had some very solid hiring issues. this one is beyond laughable. but what the hell whats the problem of murdering several hundred thousands of that nations citizens

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney insisted on Wednesday that President George W. Bush would never have invaded Iraq if he had known that were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the country.

Bush has said definitively that he would have invaded anyway

"Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney insisted on Wednesday that President George W. Bush would never have invaded Iraq if he had known that were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the country."

Mitt is just proving what everyone knows, he's a liar.

slight correction

from dickhead cheney

"If we had to do it over again we would do exactly the same thing."

Mitt is right. There is no way could have known. The man is barely conscious. Look at some videos from back then. They used to lead him around like a dementia patient. He'd wave and grin like a kid on the short bus. It was dick and rummy that knew full well it was a lie.

"If we had to do it over again we would do exactly the same thing."

#4 | Posted by truthhurts at 2011-12-22 08:26 AM

--Panetta

Flag: Offensive headline.

P.S.: I'm a lib. If we can't fend off Romney without descending into such cheap name-calling, we deserve to lose.

"Shit Romney" isn't as offensive as the shit he's peddling.

""Shit Romney" isn't as offensive as the shit he's peddling."

Incredible as it seems, you're actually close to getting my point.

Romney's record and his ideas for this country are pretty awful; we should be able to stop him in his tracks just by pointing them out.

Remember, it's working with Newt.

why the anger, it landed Obama a nobel

They gave Obama a Nobel simply to prove that giving one to Al Gore wasn't the stupidest thing they have done. They even gave one to Krugman only because he bashed Bush.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"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

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response 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..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

-Sucks to be you vern.

those quotes were lies? all you posted were the words of a guy named Mohamed ElBaradei.

yeah, the guy who was actually doing the inspections, why would his words mean anyting.

of course, if all these US politicians quotes are so accurate, it makes one wonder why the intelligence that they had to come to those conclusions was not shared with the inspectors.

IAEA Director General ElBaradei’s March 7 report was notable for its
refutations of some of the U.S. and U.K. allegations of clandestine nuclear activities by Iraq. ElBaradei reported that documents on the alleged procurement of uranium from Niger were deemed forgeries.

it makes one wonder why the intelligence that they had to come to those conclusions was not shared with the inspectors.

ah yes....the ole "they were duped" argument.

sucks to be you.

how's that?

what do you think sucks about it?

haha, oh yeah the intel was shared

Secretary Powell’s briefing highlighted the significant role intelligence can play
in determining Iraqi compliance. While most observers agree that the presentation
did not include a “smoking gun,” the information points to Iraqi practices to evade detection. Was this enough to constitute evidence of noncompliance? Although Blix’s report on February 14th noted that “intelligence information has been useful for UNMOVIC,” Blix took issue with the satellite photos of the chemical sites, suggesting that the fact that the images were taken several weeks apart meant that the
movement of munitions could “just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of imminent inspection.”50 Blix also noted that in some cases, intelligence information led to discovery of documents, whereas in other cases, intelligence led to sites with no proscribed items.

hahahahaha, yeah sure a reasonble person could conclude Iraq had WMD.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

sucks to be you

sucks to be you.

how's that?

what do you think sucks about it?

#20 | Posted by eberly

you live a life based on false premises, ignorant of reality, justifying support of war crimes.

sucks to be you.

of course, if all these US politicians quotes are so accurate, it makes one wonder why the intelligence that they had to come to those conclusions was not shared with the inspectors.

#17 | Posted by truthhurts at 2011-12-22 10:45 AM

Like what moron? There were no inspectors from 1998-2002 you fucking tool. They were not allowed full access for almost a year after they were let back in. Hell the only reason they were allowed back was due to Bush threatening an invasion.

Why you morons continue to pretend Saddam was right and Bush was wrong is simply laughable, and reflect the weak and stupid america has to offer.

"Like what moron? There were no inspectors from 1998-2002 you fucking tool. They were not allowed full access for almost a year after they were let back in."

You do realize that you just made my argument for me, thanks

"Hell the only reason they were allowed back was due to Bush threatening an invasion. "

Who is condemning bush for getting inspectors back into Iraq?

I am condemning bush for starting a war of aggression.

Like what moron?

See Powell's speech to the UN, which was the US's official justification for hostile action against Iraq. This speech provided intelligence of supposed Iraqi WMD programs.

The US could/should/did supply the underlying intel to the inspectors to assist the inspectors in finding WMD.

and since no WMD were found either the intel was wrong or it intel wasnt shared.

-you live a life based on false premises, ignorant of reality, justifying support of war crimes.

you are a liar. I do no such thing. none of it. I support war crimes? how? which ones?

I'll be back..gotta go take my mom to the hairdresser.

You do realize that you just made my argument for me, thanks
#24 | Posted by truthhurts at 2011-12-22 10:54 AM |

Of course I do. That is why I wrote this in the same retort.

Why you morons continue to pretend Saddam was right and Bush was wrong is simply laughable, and reflect the weak and stupid america has to offer.
#23 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2011-12-22 10:53 AM

Laughable how you are able to ignore recent events as you are leading up to the Iraq war.

"Who is condemning bush for getting inspectors back into Iraq?"

Only tools like yourself pretending they would have been let back in without the threat of invasion. Like everything else blocked from your less than functioning brain, you forgot all the events surrounding
the 16 sanctions violated over the years...

doubling down on dumb peepee?

WHo is arguing against getting the inspectors back in?

Iraq didnt violate the sanctions as evident by the fact they didnt have WMD

WHo is arguing against getting the inspectors back in?

Iraq didnt violate the sanctions as evident by the fact they didnt have WMD
#30 | Posted by truthhurts at 2011-12-22 11:18 AM |

Nobody but losers like you, and those stupid enough to think they would have been let back in without Bush and the invasion threat.

How many times you want me to point out why you are a useless tool?

They are related.

Que conspiracy theorists.

You should stop listening to the voices in your head.

why dont you post something where I criticized bush for getting the inspectors in dumbass.

Iraq didnt violate the sanctions as evident by the fact they didnt have WMD
#30 | Posted by truthhurts at 2011-12-22 11:18 AM

Meaning you once again believe Saddam was telling the truth and was against his removal by force.

Like Egypt and Libya, you prove you are nothing but a coward afraid of his own shadow. It's over truthy. Stick your head back in the sand and say to yourself there's no place like home, there's no place like home...

Iraq didnt violate the sanctions as evident by the fact they didnt have WMD
#30 | Posted by truthhurts at 2011-12-22 11:18 AM

Meaning you once again believe Saddam was telling the truth and was against his removal by force.

Like Egypt and Libya, you prove you are nothing but a coward afraid of his own shadow. It's over truthy. Stick your head back in the sand and say to yourself there's no place like home, there's no place like home...

#34 | Posted by crispee_oc at

I know this sucks peepee but on the issue of WMD,Iraq WAS telling the truth.

THEY HAD NO WMD

or perhaps you could demonstrate how they did have WMD

Since they didnt have WMD, ipsofacto they were in compliance with those UN Sanctions against them making WMD

It's over truthy.

hahahahahahaha

60 dead Iraqis today from bombings.

your ignorance is infinite

Flag: Offensive headline.

I would have removed the "Shit Romney" headline had I seen it earlier.

Didn't Bush say not too long ago he would have attacked Iraq anyway, regardless of what we know now about the lack of WMDs?

If you saw Powell's presentation in front of the UN and didn't question the whole "Iraq has WMDs" claim, you're an idiot.

That is all.

"Didn't Bush say not too long ago he would have attacked Iraq anyway, regardless of what we know now about the lack of WMDs?"

Meaning he was right and on the same page as Panetta...

"The president's attacks are outrageous. Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful in their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom cloud.

The president has undermined trust. No longer will the members of Congress be entitled to accept his veracity. Caveat emptor has become the word. Every member of Congress is on his or her own to determine the truth."

"On Oct. 11, I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptor. Most of my colleagues could not."

Senator Bob Graham,

gee peepee arent you going to apologize for accusing me of casting aspersions on bush?

you do admit you were wrong, correct?

Or as Hillary Clinton later said, she didn't think the President would lie to her about WMD in Iraq.

"Didn't Bush say not too long ago he would have attacked Iraq anyway, regardless of what we know now about the lack of WMDs?"

Blair has said it. Cheney has said it. I don't know that Bush has said it. But it doesn't matter what they say. We saw the "evidence" they had and it would not lead any reasonable person to believe that Iraq had WMDs and Bush invaded anyway. So we know he had no evidence, pretended he did and still invaded.

No surprises here. I think everybody pretty much already understands that if elected, Romney will be a GWBesque president. Wholly subservient to the military-corporate Establishment. If you want that kind of leader, or if you believe it is preferable to President Obama, then vote for Mitt. I just can't believe most Americans want that.

So mitt would be just like Obama. Wholly subservient to the MIC.

Incredible as it seems, you're actually close to getting my point.

#10 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2011-12-22 09:47 AM

Wholly subservient to the military-corporate Establishment. If you want that kind of leader...

#45 | Posted by moder8 at 2011-12-22 11:52 AM

Or as Hillary Clinton later said, she didn't think the President would lie to her about WMD in Iraq.
#43 | Posted by Corky at 2011-12-22 11:40 AM |

Was that the 2004 version in a CNN interview? You know, after multiple interviews where she stood by her vote, and never once uttered she was lied to?

God you useless libs are a fucking riot...

"Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

"Wholly subservient to the military-corporate Establishment"

In other words, act like a CiC instead of the clown who recently bowed to cutting the funding for the military without as much as a whimper...

So we know he had no evidence, pretended he did and still invaded.
#44 | Posted by Sully at 2011-12-22 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

That we includes some of the stupidest to grace DC, the airwaves and of course Drudge. Not surprised you are a proud to be Maury and Springer guest...

If you saw Powell's presentation in front of the UN and didn't question the whole "Iraq has WMDs" claim, you're an idiot.

That is all.
#39 | Posted by Sully at 2011-12-22 11:37 AM |

You got that right. Now about the rest of you being a loser and suffering from Bush deranged syndrome...

Crispee believe whatever you want but Bob Graham was my Senator at the time and no finer man has ever sat in the US Senate. If he indicated Bush like...then Bush lied.

"That we includes some of the stupidest to grace DC, the airwaves and of course Drudge."

Yes, 'that we includes'. Very good. Now go play in the yard and try not to wrap your leash around a tree this time.

Crispee believe whatever you want but Bob Graham was my Senator at the time and no finer man has ever sat in the US Senate. If he indicated Bush like...then Bush lied.

#53 | Posted by danni at 2011-12-22 12:10 PM

10 Leading Lawmakers Urge Targeting of Iraq

By Steven Mufson, Washington Post, Thursday 6 December 2001; Page A28

Ten leading members of Congress have signed a letter urging President Bush to make the Iraqi regime the next major target in the war on terrorism, declaring that as we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq.

Among the signers are former presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.); former vice presidential candidate Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.); the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms (N.C.); Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.); House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.); and the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard C. Shelby (Ala.).

The letter adds to the chorus of policymakers calling for efforts to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. It follows warnings by Bush that Iraq will face serious consequences if it does not allow United Nations inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction. We believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later, the letter said.

Noting that this month marks the third anniversary of the last U.N. inspection of Iraqi weapons programs, the lawmakers said the current economic sanctions are not enough to contain Iraq. They said the administration had struggled to close loopholes in the sanctions but had failed to stop illicit oil sales. They also said they have no doubt Hussein has reinvigorated Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

The lawmakers urged Bush to provide more assistance to the opposition Iraqi National Congress. Successive administrations have funded conferences, offices and other intellectual exercises that have done little more than expose the INC to accusations of being limousine insurgents and armchair guerrillas, the letter said.

Yes, 'that we includes'. Very good. Now go play in the yard and try not to wrap your leash around a tree this time.
#54 | Posted by Sully at 2011-12-22 12:23 PM

Maybe you and Cindy Sheehan can get together and discuss why you both suffer from the same Bush disease...

"If we knew at the time of our entry into Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction, if somehow we had been given that information, why, obviously we would not have gone in,"

They did know at the time that Hussein had destroyed his stockpile of largely useless chemical weapons after the first Gulf War.

Hussein Kamel Hassan al-Majid (lived 1954 to February 23, 1996) was the son-in-law and second cousin of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. He defected to Jordan and assisted United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection teams assigned to look for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Kamel rose through the military ranks to become the Supervisor of the Republican Guard, Iraq's elite military forces, in 1982. He later became the Minister of Industries, heading the Military Industrialisation Commission and supervising Iraq's weapons development programs from 1987.
He married one of Saddam Hussein's daughters, Raghad Hussein, and lived in Iraq until 1995.[1] On August 7 of that year, Kamel and his wife defected from Iraq, along with Kamel's brother, Col. Saddam Kamel al-Majid, and the brother's wife, Rana Hussein, another of Saddam Hussein's daughters. In a September 21, 1995 interview with CNN, Hussein Kamel explained:
This is what made me leave the country, the fact that Saddam Hussein surrounds himself with inefficient ministers and advisers who are not chosen for their competence but according to the whims of the Iraqi president. And as a result of this the whole of Iraq is suffering. [3]
Jordan granted asylum to the Kamels, and there they began to cooperate with UNSCOM and its director Rolf Ekus, the United States' CIA and the British MI6. Kamel provided the inspection teams with a wealth of information.
Kamel confirmed what inspectors had been able to ascertain shortly before his defection, that Iraq had operated a biological warfare program prior to the Gulf War, providing locations for large amounts of undeclared technical documentation. The defection appears to have had a psychological impact in Baghdad due to uncertainty over what Kamel would reveal: soon afterwards, inspectors were invited to revisit weapons sites and new documents were turned over for examination.
In a January 25, 1999 report to the U.N. Security Council, UNSCOM declared that the history of the Iraqi weapons inspections "must be divided into two parts, separated by the events following the departure from Iraq, in August 1995, of Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel."
Kamel maintained that Iraq had destroyed its weapons of mass destruction and related programs after the end of the first Gulf War.
I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed. [4]
Britain's Foreign Office has stated that they disbelieved this claim,[citation needed] while a March 3, 2003 Newsweek report said that Kamel's revelations were "hushed up" because inspectors "hoped to bluff Saddam [Hussein] into revealing still more." [5] Kamel's version of events appear to have been borne out in the wake of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
In February 1996, after intermediaries for Saddam Hussein had assured them that all would be forgiven, Hussein Kamel and Saddam Kamel were convinced to return to Iraq with their wives. Reportedly, immediately upon their return, they were ordered to divorce their wives and were denounced as traitors. Three days after their arrival, on February 23, they refused to surrender to Saddam's security forces and were killed in a 13-minute firefight at a safe house.[2]

#13 | Posted by vernon
#14 | Posted by vernon

None of those people actually ordered the invasion/occupation of Iraq.

"None of those people actually ordered the invasion/occupation of Iraq.

#58 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2011-12-22 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag:"

Rather sad that people force you to explain such things to them.

They were gonna go in one way or the other.

The plans to do so were already being drawn up well before 911 occurred on Bush's watch.

Be Well.

#57 | Posted by dethspud at 2011-12-22 12:41 PM |

No kidding? Wow, you are as brilliant as Sully...

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

Representative Benjamin A. Gilman (Republican, NY-20) introduced the H.R. 4655 on September 29, 1998. The House of Representatives passed the bill 360 - 38 on October 5, and the Senate passed it with unanimous consent two days later. President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.[

President Clinton stated in February 1998:

Iraq 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.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998 [6]

-None of those people actually ordered the invasion/occupation of Iraq.

ordered? no

authorized?

but I agree that GWB had his agenda and wanted to invade. would he have invaded if 9-11 had NOT happened? good question....

#60 | POSTED BY CRISPEE_OC AT 2011-12-22 12:53 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

"Supporting democracy and regime change in Iraq" =/= "1 trillion dollar invasion/occupation".

Yes, you can find anti-Iraq rhetoric on both sides of the aisle if you look but that does nothing to change the fact that Bush wanted to actually invade and occupy Iraq long before 9/11 despite knowing full well that Iraq's WMD programs were long gone (and largely useless in the first place) and that he deliberately lied to the US and the world by overstating the case for invasion using discredited, cherry-picked intel stripped of caveats.

It was a proxy war for Israel and the US MIC.

Be Well.

Why is Pee-pee spamming the board with this shit? Does he think Iraq really had WMDs and was working with Al Queda? What a tiresome idiot.

-None of those people actually ordered the invasion/occupation of Iraq.

ordered? no

authorized?

but I agree that GWB had his agenda and wanted to invade. would he have invaded if 9-11 had NOT happened? good question....

#61 | Posted by eberly at 2011-12-22 12:55 PM | Reply

authorized?

Bush was authorized to confront the ongoing threat posed by iraq

March 2003 proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq posed no threat to the the US

therefore no authorization to invade iraq

The ony problem vern is that you forget the part where ol Bob Grahm asked and never received the info that supposedly confirmed the WMD. He is on record asking and complaigning that the bush admin wouldnt let the select committee have the info. Further, ole whats his name (the child molester guy), was at the time the UN weapons inspector and stated that given another couple of weeks, he could certify that they didnt have them (and they didnt).

Always portraying the US as having the highest ethical intentions, when they are an out of control superpower run by criminals that cannot win unnecessary foriegn wars in spite of having the greatest collection of weapons of mass destruction in the history of mankind.

The North Vietnamese kicked our butts, Iraq kicked out butts and Afghanistan will kick our butts.

These wars are triggered by ill concieved imperialistic goals which depend on the US dollar remaining the sole medium of exchange. It makes life easier for Americans than any other country. To maintainn that advantage they are prepared to kill maim and destroy others.

Why is Pee-pee spamming the board with this shit? Does he think Iraq really had WMDs and was working with Al Queda? What a tiresome idiot.
#63 | Posted by Sully at 2011-12-22 01:11 PM |

Why is Thully pretending Clinton and the rest of the world were all in agreement after inspectors were kicked out? Simple, he is a proud Cindy Sheehan protestor, and shows his vag to prove it.

We have invaded countries who's done nothing to us. Why hasn't war crimes been filed and the politicians put in jail?

Why hasn't war crimes been filed and the politicians put in jail?

We won. Name a time the winning side has ever been charged with war crimes.

From the amount of energy going in to the Bush defense here I'm suspecting my theory about Jeb being the final Republican nominee is more likely than even I thought. First though, they have to rehabilitate the Bush name and thus they have to convince America that his idiotic and tragic invasion was done for good reasons which we all know is not true. With enough repititions of these defenses though I think the GOP does think that they can make Bush look like a statesman before Nov. 2012 an thus help his brother get elected.
Why else the rehash of ancient history? And why with so much energy?
There has to be a reason.

my theory about Jeb being the final Republican nominee
...

Why else the rehash of ancient history? And why with so much energy?
There has to be a reason.

#70 | Posted by danni at 2011-12-22 01:55 PM

I think your theory is goofy. I will retract if by some chance you are right.

"Why is Thully pretending Clinton and the rest of the world were all in agreement after inspectors were kicked out?"

It is relevant to the fact that Iraq had no WMDs and no linkes to Al Queda. Therefore, when Bush claimed to know for sure that both were true, he lied. There is no getting around facts, you pathetic old imbecile. You can spam the board all you want and babble about Sheehan all you want and you're still factually incorrect.

"It is relevant..."

Should of said "not relevant". Hardly matters. I'm arguing with a complete retard and should know better...

GOP = God's Ordained politicians! " christian Taliban"

Religious control freaks who talk to the invisible man!

Religious control freaks who talk to the invisible man!

#74 | POSTED BY TRUTHTELLER101 AT 2011-12-22 02:22 PM | REPLY | FLAG

the invisible man has told us to attack Iran. President overheard that conversation.

Saying there needs to be regime change in Iraq is not the same as invading Iraq.

Actions speak louder than words.

Unless you're a Bush apologist.

Of course, Romney fails to mention neither Congress nor the American people were told of the grave doubts about WMD's expressed by our own intelligence services and those of our allies the Bush WH knew about and cast aside as inconvenient to their little plan - a plan that was the topic of the first two National Security Council meetings in February of 2001.

Lies through omission.

I don't think Congress would have authorized war with Iraq if they'd known all that was hidden from them and never included in their intelligence briefings. Neither would most sane Americans have supported it.

A bunch of trumped up bullshit by the Bush/Cheney WH. Very little they had to say in the lead up to war was truthful.

You revisionist copperhead demtards are a crackup.

AU you forgot to drag out Curveball. That's your sigature move. You know who to believe in hindsight. Didn't your '04 veep candidate sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee? ROFLMAO

When are you going to get with the revisions on Obama's 2008 campaign of lies? I know you're revising your values on an almost daily basis, but you still have a ways to go to catch up with reality.

Why hasn't war crimes been filed and the politicians put in jail?

We won. Name a time the winning side has ever been charged with war crimes.

#69 | Posted by kanrei

Even in the Anerican War of Northern Aggression, with over 600,000 dead Americans in just four years, the only dude charged was the Confederate warden of the Andersonville Prison.

Hell, we didn't even go after Robert E. Lee for treason, even though he turned down the command of the Union forces in favor of fighting for Virginia.

Didn't your '04 veep candidate sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee? ROFLMAO

Did you read my post? Congress weren't told all the details about doubts.

Is your brain made out of brick?

And, yes, they Bush WH based their entire case around Curveball.

Sorry they don't tell you that in the fright wing media.

I'd have to say that Mitt Romney is the worst excuse for a major presidential candidate I have ever seen----Save for the other four or five GOP midgets also running.

I know Mitt talks to real people at least intermittently, because I see him visiting coffee shops with them----Places where, I assume, the Mormon looks down his nose on anyone actually having a mug----But I don't have any real idea that he actually listens to what is said to him.