Source of Iraq’s WMDs: ‘I made the whole thing up

[QUOTE=Roger Perry;751668]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack for example
The Halabja poison gas attack , also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday, was an incident that took place on March 16, 1988 BB43 (before Bush 43).
The Iraqi High Criminal Court recognized the Halabja massacre as act of genocide on March 1, 2010. The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injured around 7,000 and 10,000 more.[/quote]

How does that number compare to the 4,000 plus U.S. service men and women that have been killed in Iraq and the thousands that have been maimed or wounded? How does that number compare to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children that have been killed, maimed or wounded since the start of the invasion in 2003?

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/vid...VR5&FORM=LKVR4

---

Roger,
You're trying to show blind ideologues their hypocrisy. Its like telling a proud nudist that he doesn't have any clothes on, and hoping that will embarrass him.

The truth has been shown, and known....to those willing to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjh345

Cloud the issue all you guys want to, but the clear fact of the matter is that Bush made the case to go to war in 2003 based on "reliable intelligence" that WMD's existed AT THAT TIME in 2003.

That was clearly FALSE!!!

Bush and his Administration have admitted that fact; I find it hard to believe, and would question the objectivity of those of you who still make excuses.

There are incompetent, and or crooked BOOBS all over the place in govt. It seems ther are many who won't admit and will continue to rationalize a BOOB strictly because of his supposed party affiliation. Nothing will change until this changes.

I voted for Bush in 2000, because I am a Conservative and he claimed to be one. He proved in 4 years that he was NOT a conservative; {either that or they changed the definition}. I would have voted for anyone BUT him in 2004.


This could be due to a variety of reasons, some of nefarious reasons, and some innocent reasons.

Regardless of the motivation for getting this most crucial decision wrong it clearly shows he missed the most important decision of his career. The U.S.A. is clearly the worse off for it.

Before you guys jump on me and bash this post, please tell me what happened under Bush that makes you feel he was conservative.

Then givew me your best shot. I promise NOT to run to the moderators

---

So after re reading all the posts in this thread I have failed to come up with a single person that said the OP was wrong because of Bush's conservatism or lack thereof. Bush went off the intelligence he was given. So either you think Bush, the one you guys say is the most stupid president we have ever had, staged all the intelligence fed it to other countries to verify its authenticity and then went to war. All the while never getting caught. Or you think like most of the rest of the country that he was given intelligence that turned out to be false.

Should we have come home when we didn't find any? Sure, but not much can be done about that now. I don't see how that is protecting a conservative, I would say the same thing had it been Obama or Clinton or whoever.

Yeah, who is the real war criminal Hussein or Bush. 15,000 dead or wounded under Hussein or hundreds of thousands dead or wounded under Bush?

[QUOTE=dnf777;751750]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Perry

Roger,
You're trying to show blind ideologues their hypocrisy. Its like telling a proud nudist that he doesn't have any clothes on, and hoping that will embarrass him.

The truth has been shown, and known....to those willing to see.

---

I hope you don't mean Roger has shown us the truth. He has proved himself to be as bad as the "birthers" with his Bush lied crap. The TRUTH we KNOW is that the intelligence was there were WMD's and so we went to war the intelligence proved to be wrong. Is this the first time intelligence has been wrong or did Bush lie. What do you think DNF?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TxHillHunter

Proud of a bold faced lie.....what a great influence on his sons this guy is.

---

Bush has daughters, not sons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dnf777

Bush has daughters, not sons.

---

Roger, how did you get on DNF's computer?

[QUOTE=Cody Covey;751776]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dnf777

I hope you don't mean Roger has shown us the truth. He has proved himself to be as bad as the "birthers" with his Bush lied crap. The TRUTH we KNOW is that the intelligence was there were WMD's and so we went to war the intelligence proved to be wrong. Is this the first time intelligence has been wrong or did Bush lie. What do you think DNF?

---

We'll never know exactly 'what we knew'. We were told, "just wait, and you'll see...trust us", and of course we never did. There weren't WMDs during the time leading up to the invasion, and if they did, they were buried under tons of sand and totally ineffective. Those are the facts.

What is in dispute, is what and WHEN we knew those things to be true. Was it truly in 2006? Or was it during or before the Iraq invasion? There is evidence to point to "before" the invasion. (Paul O'Neil, Scott McClelland, Downing St. memos, and numerous insider memoirs) We have high ranking officials telling us otherwise. I suspect we'll all be left to make up our own minds as to what really happened, based on the carefully selected and leaked information made available to the public.

how's that for non-commital? I think its the best anyone can offer based on what's out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjh345

There are incompetent, and or crooked BOOBS all over the place in govt. It seems ther are many who won't admit and will continue to rationalize a BOOB strictly because of his supposed party affiliation. Nothing will change until this changes.

I voted for Bush in 2000, because I am a Conservative and he claimed to be one. He proved in 4 years that he was NOT a conservative; {either that or they changed the definition}. I would have voted for anyone BUT him in 2004.


This could be due to a variety of reasons, some of nefarious reasons, and some innocent reasons.

Regardless of the motivation for getting this most crucial decision wrong it clearly shows he missed the most important decision of his career. The U.S.A. is clearly the worse off for it.

Before you guys jump on me and bash this post, please tell me what happened under Bush that makes you feel he was conservative.

Then givew me your best shot. I promise NOT to run to the moderators

---

You will not find many Bush defenders on this forum, but you will find that many thought him to be the best choice of those offered. But he did give us the present POTUS, which indirectly may be the signature accomplishment of his presidency :o.

The federal bureaucracy is such that if it were placed on a scale it would tilt sharply left. One cannot expect rational decisions from the likes of those people.

B43 was little different than B41, both are Rockefeller R's or whatever else you want to name the disease. It is hard to relate to real life issues when you've not seen them, but would have Gore or Kerry done as well & we would not have Roberts-Alito on the Supremes, though not B43's 1st choice.

I judge conservatism by what AUH20 presented, precious few meet that standard & none meet his standard of not lining his pockets while in office.

In your youthful years in Creede, were you a town kid or a ranch kid?

Well, if there's a face that can launch 1000 ships in ancient times....the modern version would be a "curveball" that can cause 100,000 deaths, including 4000+ American troops, and three trillion dollars evaporated away!

1000 ships doesn't seem like that big of a deal anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dnf777

Well, if there's a face that can launch 1000 ships in ancient times....the modern version would be a "curveball" that can cause 100,000 deaths, including 4000+ American troops, and three trillion dollars evaporated away!

1000 ships doesn't seem like that big of a deal anymore.

---

Way to inflate the figures.

The Iraq was has cost to date aprox 770 billion. Just like you to inflate the figures to back your argument. The numbers you are using figure in the temp. rise in oil as well as the financial crisis and anything else that the Washington Post thought was related to it in some fashion. Those figures are a joke to add in.

http://costofwar.com/en/