Terrorists were always in Iraq, they just are now being pointed out because they are fighting us there and MORE have come in. They have always been there though.
there is proven documentation that they had been there for years. Iraq has been a strong supporter of various terrorist organizations.
Not Al Qaeda, though. And that was the Bush claim.
http://www.peterbergen.com/clients/PeterBergen/pbergen.nsf/Web00002Show?OpenForm&ParentUNID=949CD984D16610D185256D870071186A
And here we go around the circle again!
"Do you read the words that are coming out of my computer???"
The war on Iraq was NOT about terrorism
Bush claimed justification for invading Iraq was that Saddam had violated UN Security Council Resolution 687 by virtue of alledged possession of weapons of mass destruction which were in violation of the cease-fire agreement. This meant (in Bush's twisted/contorted legal misrepresentation) that Resolution 678 was still active and, therefore, military force was authorized.
So, you see, Bush's justification for invading Iraq was that Saddam possessed WMDs and was an "immediate threat" to the U.S. This was never so and was known to not be so.
Originally posted by: conjur
And here we go around the circle again!
"Do you read the words that are coming out of my computer???"
The war on Iraq was NOT about terrorism
Bush claimed justification for invading Iraq was that Saddam had violated UN Security Council Resolution 687 by virtue of alledged possession of weapons of mass destruction which were in violation of the cease-fire agreement. This meant (in Bush's twisted/contorted legal misrepresentation) that Resolution 678 was still active and, therefore, military force was authorized.
So, you see, Bush's justification for invading Iraq was that Saddam possessed WMDs and was an "immediate threat" to the U.S. This was never so and was known to not be so.
I am speaking in the context of this thread. Start from your original post and go down. You will see what I am saying.
In regards to your "never so" statement. This is something that you and I will never agree on. But hey, it would be a boring Forum if everyone agreed.
Guess I assumed you meant Al Qaeda.Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Originally posted by: conjur
And here we go around the circle again!
"Do you read the words that are coming out of my computer???"
The war on Iraq was NOT about terrorism
Bush claimed justification for invading Iraq was that Saddam had violated UN Security Council Resolution 687 by virtue of alledged possession of weapons of mass destruction which were in violation of the cease-fire agreement. This meant (in Bush's twisted/contorted legal misrepresentation) that Resolution 678 was still active and, therefore, military force was authorized.
So, you see, Bush's justification for invading Iraq was that Saddam possessed WMDs and was an "immediate threat" to the U.S. This was never so and was known to not be so.
I am speaking in the context of this thread. Start from your original post and go down. You will see what I am saying.
Then what's your take on The Bush Admnistration's Public Statements on Iraq?
Originally posted by: bozack
and because conjur says it isn't then that means it must not be, because as we all know, conjur is the final say and the only say...
whatever nutjobbelieve whatever the liberal media spoon feeds you.
honestly who gives a rats ass what Spain, poland and the ECP think...
Way to avoid actually answering the question!
Originally posted by: conjur
Guess I assumed you meant Al Qaeda.Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Originally posted by: conjur
And here we go around the circle again!
"Do you read the words that are coming out of my computer???"
The war on Iraq was NOT about terrorism
Bush claimed justification for invading Iraq was that Saddam had violated UN Security Council Resolution 687 by virtue of alledged possession of weapons of mass destruction which were in violation of the cease-fire agreement. This meant (in Bush's twisted/contorted legal misrepresentation) that Resolution 678 was still active and, therefore, military force was authorized.
So, you see, Bush's justification for invading Iraq was that Saddam possessed WMDs and was an "immediate threat" to the U.S. This was never so and was known to not be so.
I am speaking in the context of this thread. Start from your original post and go down. You will see what I am saying.
Then what's your take on The Bush Admnistration's Public Statements on Iraq?
I am honestly not going to read all of that right now. I will tonight though.
I do want to say that I have heard lots of misc reports out of that report. I can say that the PRIMARY reason we went to Iraq was because they had provided the UN with a detailed report of their WMD's when we pushed them out of Kuwait. They were told by the UN to destroy all of the WMD's. Iraq produced records that indicated that they only partially destroyed their WMD's and the US (post 9/11 and post threat by Saddam that he woudl make our days night and nights hell) decided to go in and take care of what the UN refused to.
When it comes to "warnings" from some agencies... I can tell you with 100% certainty that there are 100's of classified reports that we know no details of that he based his statements off of. I am also 100% sure that there were some items that he used "worst case scenario" when telling the people and other government leaders. By doing so, he over-stated what could/would happen. That is called persuasive speach and you can't hold that against anyone doing what they feel is right.
Don't get me wrong... I am not a blind follower of GWB. I actually don't agree with a few of his main platform idea's. I do have an opinion when people say that we are in Iraq for Oil or due to a lie or that GWB should be impeached etc...
And, in addition to these countries feeling misled, we have several people on the inside claiming that the Bush Administration misled the world:
Richard Clarke
Paul O'Neill
Greg Thielmann
Something is awry in the Bush Administration. There's too much corroboration going on for this all to be a 'vast left-wing conspiracy'.
Richard Clarke
Paul O'Neill
Greg Thielmann
Something is awry in the Bush Administration. There's too much corroboration going on for this all to be a 'vast left-wing conspiracy'.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter