Final Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq

Obviously he did a good job of getting them to Syria before being invaded.

 

W stands for LIAR!

 

That was addressed in the report which said they found no evidence to support that.

 

He did produce tons of chemical weapons. He used them against the Kurds and during the Iran/Iraq war. He didn't account for those weapons. That was his job as specified by the 14 (at least) UN resolutions. He didn't do his job, he loses power. Simple as that.

 

So do you agree that Bush was wrong/lied on the other statements?

You are right in that he didn't completely account for the WMD, that's why there were inspectors in their. Isn't it better to let the weapons end being accounted for, especially when the accounting will say they aren't there, then going to war, and having thousands die as a result?

Is it really worth it to have thousands die, rather than let the inspectors account for the weapons just because Saddam's own reports weren't good enough?

 

IN THE 1980S, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

The United States SOLD those weapons to Saddam FOR the Iraq/Iran war.

And that was the job of the weapons inspectors, a job that was mere months away from being complete when GWB pulled out the inspectors in order to invade.

And he was allowing the inspectors unfettered access to all the sites they wanted to see right up until GWB pulled them out.

OUR job, as specified by the resolutions, was to allow the inspectors to complete their work and to allow the UNSC to find Saddam in breach of the resolutions. If those two things had happened, GWB would have been in the right, but GWB pulled the weapons inspectors and invaded even though as Kofi Annan said, the action was illegal.

He didn't complete the necessary paperwork, so we invaded. I don't think that incomplete paperwork is a reason for war, particularly when the people responsible for verifying the paperwork (the UN weapons inspectors) were still working to verify Saddam's compliance.

 

andrew you've really become a Saddam apologist. Unfettered access? What was that after we had to twist his arm 10,000 times to get into the palaces? Was that after he's already kicked the inspectors out in years past and harrassed them? He clearly toyed with the inspectors' access and probably sat back smoking cubans and drinking cognac laughing about the inspection process. Good thing he had a great friend in the liberals in the US who were cheering him on hoping the US didn't find anything so Bush would look bad.

Saddam had wmd in the past and has a proven track record of using them. He didn't account for his weapons, he would have jumped at the chance to get more, and wouldn't hesitate to use them in the future. Having a psycho like that in power is not something I enjoy thinking about. We did the right thing.

 

What did Andy say that isn't fact? How is stating the truth becoming a Saddam apologist.

The fact that you pretend to know what Saddam was doing regarding inspections is humerous. So is the fact that it was not Saddam that kicked the inspectors out, but the president that pulled them out.

We all wanted Saddam out of power, but insufficient paperwork, isn't enough reason to sacrifice all those lives and money, when there are other ways to keep Saddam from becoming a threat.

 

And you have always been nothing more than a Bush bobblehead.

Who the he!! cares what it took to get unfettered access? The point is that Saddam had given the inspectors free reign throughout Iraq.

At least you can admit that Saddam's transgressions regarding inspections were in "years past." Saddam was doing everything that the UNSC told him to do in the resolutions and GWB is the one who BROKE the UNSC resolutions when he invaded.

Again, in years past that may have been true, but not only did Saddam allow the inspectors back in, but he allowed them to visit any sites they wanted AND offered to allow the CIA and FBI to come in and verify the results of the inspectors.

This idiotic comment isn't worth anything but a .

Yeah, well there were a lot of things that I did in the 80s that I would rather forget too. These transgressions were over a decade and a half ago and the weapons themselves were supplied by the United States. Saddam had not used WMDs in the last fifteen years and thus your argument is moot.

So you think it is right to go to war over paperwork errors, huh?

As would any other world leader.

If Saddam was going to use WMDs, you would think that he would have used them in '91 or during the invasion of '03. Saddam would have continued to have a very weak military, almost no funding, and thus very little opportunity to acquire or make WMDs with the sanctions in place (and since the US has veto power in the UNSC, the sanctions could not have been removed without our approval).

Having a psycho like that in power is not a good thing, but GWB did the absolute WRONG thing in invading the way he did. As Kerry has consistently said since the beginning of his campaign...

Saddam was a murderous tyrant.
Saddam needed to disarm.
There was a right way and a wrong way to pursue the disarmament and GWB chose the wrong way.

 

So the intelligence was wrong.

Ok....is anyone surprised?

Bush thinks he is doing the right thing, time will tell.

DD

 

OK....

I just laughed out loud!



ummmm...nothing to see here folks...i'm hard at work .....(really...).

 

Maybe I see this a little different than most...

My brother is a Marine. He went to Germany to prepare for the Afghan war and went briefly....well, 5 months is brief compared to Iraq.

Anyways, I had no problem with him going as a 20 year old at the time because I myself went to his superior to ask if I can go.

But to go to war and send thousands of troops because you THINK someone is going to do something is totally ridiculous. To be perfectly honest, if my brother was called to Iraq and died for this bullsh!t, I would of probably went nuts. Who knows what I would of done.

This is what I tell people who think that Bush's logic of thinking is sane.

Lets say you live in a neighborhood that 20 years ago had a man who raped women. After raping 25 of them, he finally gets caught and sent to prison. He is released and moves into your neighborhood. Lets say you get wind of his past. And rumors start to swirl that he talked to a buddy of his who was an ex-con rapist himself and you hear that he told him your wife and daughter look "juicy" and he gets turned on by them walking outside in the tanktops on a hot summer day. He tells him that he would love to this and that and this and that. Use your imagination.

You hear about this. And you know his past. You confront him and he says that he is not like that and they are just rumors. He says to you that your wife is very pretty and so is your daughter. But that what happened was in his past and he just wants to live his life.

Now, do you punch him and kick his ass for saying what he said to you? Do you have the right to THINK that if you don't do this now and whoop his ass, your family could be harmed? Do you think that if you do that, the police will come over and say it was ok?

Then ask yourself this. Do you think its ok for the US to go to war because they THOUGHT that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction DESPITE so many objections from around the world including long time allies?

You don't need to get approval to kick someones ass. But if your best friend says to you that you need to take a step back and make sure that you are sure something is going to happen that will hurt your family before killing this guy...would you ignore him?

To me, this is all common sense. This war is stupid. Its unnecessary and wrong. Liberate a bunch of idiots who don't even want or APPRECIATE IT!?!?!? In a region where they have to clean up their own culture before even getting to the 17th century no less the 21st. So which is it? He was a threat to the US? The neighbors? To his pimp? Liberation?

Please.

Bush makes me laugh. And I cry when I think that he is going to be re-elected again.

 

John Edwards last night:

[if the U.N. weapons inspectors] "had time to do their job, they would have discovered what we now know, that in fact Saddam Hussein had no weapons, that in fact Saddam Hussein has no connection with 9/11, that in fact Saddam Hussein has little or no connection with al Qaeda."

John Edwards, Sept. 12, 2002:

"The terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of Sept. 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On Sept. 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror."