Bush Does Not Deserve To Be Commander-In-Chief

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
This is the most upsetting and quite frankly disgusting news story I have ever read about the Bush Administration. It makes me sick to my bones that this man was not taken out for the pure political reason of wanting a reason for war against Saddam:

MSNBC

With Tuesday?s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself ? but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

?Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn?t do it,? said Michael O?Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

?People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president?s policy of preemption against terrorists,? according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi?s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late ? Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. ?Here?s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we?re suffering as a result inside Iraq,? Cressey added.

And despite the Bush administration?s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi?s killing streak continues today.

Here they had a known terrorist with real ties to the murderers of 9/11, and they let him slip for their unneccessary war. If this story is accurate, it is indefensible.

This brings up the question, why didn't the Bush administration bring this evidence to light? Knowingly or not, Iraq was harboring a known terrorist and his lab. I'm not sure of geography, but one explanation would be that Kirma is in the Kurdish-controlled region that was never really controlled by Saddam.

EDIT: This town of Kirma IS in Kurdistan, which was not controlled by Saddam and his party.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Hey this is the Dub we are talking about! Considering who he is and his past regarding running other companies the fact that we are not in bankrupcy speaks volumes on how much he has improved. Of course it would have been nicw to have someone like McCain as President, unfortunately the Lunatic Fringe who is in charge of the Republican Party didn't believe they would have the control over him like they would the Dub!
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
This is the most upsetting and quite frankly disgusting news story I have ever read about the Bush Administration. It makes me sick to my bones that this man was not taken out for the pure political reason of wanting a reason for war against Saddam:

MSNBC

With Tuesday?s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself ? but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

?Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn?t do it,? said Michael O?Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

?People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president?s policy of preemption against terrorists,? according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi?s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late ? Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. ?Here?s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we?re suffering as a result inside Iraq,? Cressey added.

And despite the Bush administration?s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi?s killing streak continues today.

Here they had a known terrorist with real ties to the murderers of 9/11, and they let him slip for their unneccessary war. If this story is accurate, it is indefensible.

This brings up the question, why didn't the Bush administration bring this evidence to light? Knowingly or not, Iraq was harboring a known terrorist and his lab. I'm not sure of geography, but one explanation would be that Kirma is in the Kurdish-controlled region that was never really controlled by Saddam.

EDIT: This town of Kirma IS in Kurdistan, which was not controlled by Saddam and his party.

I'd agree with story, yes we should have attacked. I see no reason not to, but I am not a expert on this sort of thing. Saying Saddam doesn't have control over Kurdistan is a load of crap. Does anyone here actually know the size of this region? It's Saddam's country, its his responsibility.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
yes that truly is indefensible, expecialy considering the ongoing war called the war on terrorism
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
I've noticed a trend again - and since the other side seems to think this is a valid argument I'll use it:)

Seems as though there has been an increase in ranting attacks on Bush - the left must have realized that kerry isn't the guy and are running scared.

:)

CkG
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: maddogchen
So does this link Saddam with Al Qaeda?

dont think so
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/8089829.htm
- The administration tied Saddam to a terrorism network run by Palestinian Abu Musab al Zarqawi. That network may be behind the latest violence in Iraq, which killed at least 143 people Tuesday.

But U.S. officials say the evidence that Zarqawi had close operational ties to al-Qaida appears increasingly doubtful.

Asked for Cheney's views on Iraq and terrorism, vice presidential spokesman Kevin Kellems referred Knight Ridder to the vice president's television interviews Tuesday.

Cheney, in an interview with CNN, said Zarqawi ran an "al-Qaida-affiliated" group. He cited an intercepted letter that Zarqawi is believed to have written to al-Qaida leaders, and a White House official who spoke only on the condition of anonymity said the CIA has described Zarqawi as an al-Qaida "associate."

But U.S. officials say the Zarqawi letter contained a plea for help that al-Qaida rebuffed. Linguistic analysis of the letter indicates it was written from one equal to another, not from a subordinate to a superior, suggesting that Zarqawi considered himself an independent operator and not a part of bin Laden's organization.
 

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,903
2
76
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: maddogchen
So does this link Saddam with Al Qaeda?

dont think so
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/8089829.htm
- The administration tied Saddam to a terrorism network run by Palestinian Abu Musab al Zarqawi. That network may be behind the latest violence in Iraq, which killed at least 143 people Tuesday.

But U.S. officials say the evidence that Zarqawi had close operational ties to al-Qaida appears increasingly doubtful.

Asked for Cheney's views on Iraq and terrorism, vice presidential spokesman Kevin Kellems referred Knight Ridder to the vice president's television interviews Tuesday.

Cheney, in an interview with CNN, said Zarqawi ran an "al-Qaida-affiliated" group. He cited an intercepted letter that Zarqawi is believed to have written to al-Qaida leaders, and a White House official who spoke only on the condition of anonymity said the CIA has described Zarqawi as an al-Qaida "associate."

But U.S. officials say the Zarqawi letter contained a plea for help that al-Qaida rebuffed. Linguistic analysis of the letter indicates it was written from one equal to another, not from a subordinate to a superior, suggesting that Zarqawi considered himself an independent operator and not a part of bin Laden's organization.

I see, he's not al qaeda, just a fellow terrorist buddy.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,472
539
126
Originally posted by: maddogchen
So does this link Saddam with Al Qaeda?

Even if it does, to the libs it won't. Ever.


After 9/11 the government should have drafted 2 or 3 million soldiers and sent them all over the world to kill all the terrorists wherever they lie. Inculding Iraq, Iran, Israel, France, Germany, Turkey, Russia and other ex-Soviet States, the Phillipines, Afghanistan, India, Singapore, etc etc until none are left.

I guarantee you that Syria, Iran, North Korea and maybe a couple more don't want President Bush re-elected. Because they know they won't be able to get away with their garbage.

I thought it was great that finally the Shiites and the Sunnis made declarations against the terrorism in their country. Neither want a civil war.

Its time for these(all) people to get along.
 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0
fact is that Saddam's ineptitude during the later years made his land a safe-passage zone for terrorist. Things like ending Syria's support for global wahbism and getting Libya to come-clean with are more important than a few terrorists in a training cell in up-state Iraq.

but i disagree with all war on a basic moral level, but i'm not allowed to bring my relegous views into this, am i?
 

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
This story is getting odder.

Abizaid points the finger at al-Zarqawi

WASHINGTON -- The commander of U.S. military operations in the Middle East said Wednesday "there is no doubt" that suspected Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi masterminded suicide bombings in Iraq on Tuesday that killed more than 140 people -- perhaps as many as 271 -- during a Shi'ite Muslim religious observance.

Then, an Iraqi insurgent group claims he's dead.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A Jordanian extremist suspected of bloody suicide attacks in Iraq was killed some time ago in U.S. bombing and a letter outlining plans for fomenting sectarian war is a forgery, a statement allegedly from an insurgent group west of the capital said.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in the Sulaimaniyah mountains of northern Iraq ?during the American bombing there,? according to a statement circulated in Fallujah this week and signed by the ?Leadership of the Allahu Akbar Mujahedeen.?

There was no way to verify the authenticity of the statement, one of many leaflets put out by a variety of groups taking part in the anti-U.S. resistance.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,266
5,838
126
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
This is the most upsetting and quite frankly disgusting news story I have ever read about the Bush Administration. It makes me sick to my bones that this man was not taken out for the pure political reason of wanting a reason for war against Saddam:

MSNBC

With Tuesday?s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself ? but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

?Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn?t do it,? said Michael O?Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

?People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president?s policy of preemption against terrorists,? according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi?s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late ? Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. ?Here?s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we?re suffering as a result inside Iraq,? Cressey added.

And despite the Bush administration?s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi?s killing streak continues today.

Here they had a known terrorist with real ties to the murderers of 9/11, and they let him slip for their unneccessary war. If this story is accurate, it is indefensible.

This brings up the question, why didn't the Bush administration bring this evidence to light? Knowingly or not, Iraq was harboring a known terrorist and his lab. I'm not sure of geography, but one explanation would be that Kirma is in the Kurdish-controlled region that was never really controlled by Saddam.

EDIT: This town of Kirma IS in Kurdistan, which was not controlled by Saddam and his party.

I'd agree with story, yes we should have attacked. I see no reason not to, but I am not a expert on this sort of thing. Saying Saddam doesn't have control over Kurdistan is a load of crap. Does anyone here actually know the size of this region? It's Saddam's country, its his responsibility.

Ridiculous.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Saying Saddam doesn't have control over Kurdistan is a load of crap.
Does anyone here actually know the size of this region?
It's Saddam's country, its his responsibility.


Where were you from 1991 until 2003 when we had the 'No-Fly Zones' in place in the North
and had effectivly cut Northern Iraq off from the influence of Saddam and this Baath Party
for most of the country between Kirkuk and Turkey ? Mosel was for all practical purposes
a Kurdish Autonomus Region where we had hundres of Special Force and CIA operatives
for a 12 year span. Sure it was technically Iraq, but we made sure the Kurds pretty much
had their way all through the Clinton era and into Bush II. That 'Area' was in the Northern
Iraq area that was protected, and we damn well knew everything about it, even to the detail
of what they were making and what they were doing, prior to out invasion we left it alone and
let it become a threat to Saddam and Bahgdad, because it suited our pressure purposes.

However as the 'Dash to Victory' began we picked and chose information that Powell was
to use in front of the U.N. to try to incriminate Iraq and it's WMD program - RICIN !
They were our chosen terrorists, they were acting in our proxy, no direct support mind you,
just no interference - and our armed forces enforcing exclusion of the Saddam Government.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
you must believe the public are moron's to accept propoganda like this at face value.

this article is an attempt to smear Bush with the charge that has been successfully been made against former President Clinton (he failed to take Osama bin Laden with cruise missles)

the "military analyst" that the article so audaciously quotes is a liberal hack from the Brookings Institute which is run by a bunch of former Clinton crony's..Brookings Board of Directors - the usual suspects

U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide...Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.
What? chemical weapons, Mass destruction? i thought you libs were convinced they didn't exist? Now they exist, but only to discredit Bush????

People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president?s policy of preemption against terrorists,? according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey. Gee...former NSC member..worked under Clinton, i wonder what his politics are.

And despite the Bush administration?s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi?s killing streak continues today

this is pathetic..the entire article is an attempt to put the "blame" on Bush for not "stopping the terrorist who killed 700 people"...backed up by the analysis of a bunch of the usual clinton cronies...

the real criminal is Clinton who didn't take out bin Laden, and prevent the death of 3000+ americans. this is a transparent attempt to smear Bush in an effort to buff up Clinton's legacy...total bunk.
 

leeboy

Banned
Dec 8, 2003
451
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I've noticed a trend again - and since the other side seems to think this is a valid argument I'll use it:)

Seems as though there has been an increase in ranting attacks on Bush - the left must have realized that kerry isn't the guy and are running scared.

:)

CkG

Silly, don't you realize it doesn't matter WHO we run up against Dubya, we are going to win. Rolls eyes at you CAD, rolls eyes. Pft. Your corner is getting smaller and smaller CAD, keep painting.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
This is the most upsetting and quite frankly disgusting news story I have ever read about the Bush Administration. It makes me sick to my bones that this man was not taken out for the pure political reason of wanting a reason for war against Saddam:

MSNBC

With Tuesday?s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself ? but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

?Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn?t do it,? said Michael O?Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

?People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president?s policy of preemption against terrorists,? according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi?s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late ? Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. ?Here?s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we?re suffering as a result inside Iraq,? Cressey added.

And despite the Bush administration?s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi?s killing streak continues today.

Here they had a known terrorist with real ties to the murderers of 9/11, and they let him slip for their unneccessary war. If this story is accurate, it is indefensible.

This brings up the question, why didn't the Bush administration bring this evidence to light? Knowingly or not, Iraq was harboring a known terrorist and his lab. I'm not sure of geography, but one explanation would be that Kirma is in the Kurdish-controlled region that was never really controlled by Saddam.

EDIT: This town of Kirma IS in Kurdistan, which was not controlled by Saddam and his party.
I'll bet there is no end to the atrocities we could learn about this administration if only we had $60M and a special prosecutor.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: leeboy
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I've noticed a trend again - and since the other side seems to think this is a valid argument I'll use it:)

Seems as though there has been an increase in ranting attacks on Bush - the left must have realized that kerry isn't the guy and are running scared.

:)

CkG

Silly, don't you realize it doesn't matter WHO we run up against Dubya, we are going to win. Rolls eyes at you CAD, rolls eyes. Pft. Your corner is getting smaller and smaller CAD, keep painting.

Yup - keep telling yourself that it doesn't matter who runs against Bush. Just don't whine and bawl about it on here when kerry loses in November.:D

CkG
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,266
5,838
126
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
you must believe the public are moron's to accept propoganda like this at face value.

this article is an attempt to smear Bush with the charge that has been successfully been made against former President Clinton (he failed to take Osama bin Laden with cruise missles)

the "military analyst" that the article so audaciously quotes is a liberal hack from the Brookings Institute which is run by a bunch of former Clinton crony's..Brookings Board of Directors - the usual suspects

U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide...Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.
What? chemical weapons, Mass destruction? i thought you libs were convinced they didn't exist? Now they exist, but only to discredit Bush????

People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president?s policy of preemption against terrorists,? according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey. Gee...former NSC member..worked under Clinton, i wonder what his politics are.

And despite the Bush administration?s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi?s killing streak continues today

this is pathetic..the entire article is an attempt to put the "blame" on Bush for not "stopping the terrorist who killed 700 people"...backed up by the analysis of a bunch of the usual clinton cronies...

the real criminal is Clinton who didn't take out bin Laden, and prevent the death of 3000+ americans. this is a transparent attempt to smear Bush in an effort to buff up Clinton's legacy...total bunk.

WMD exist, what didn't/doesn't exist are Saddam's WMD.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
WMD exist, what didn't/doesn't exist are Saddam's WMD
U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq,

ouuuuu. so many contradictions...i'm getting a headache trying to get a handle on this logic..
let's see.. no WMD in Iraq, well, yes, WMD in Iraq, but NO, not under Saddam's control..but still targeted against "western" countries...so still a terrorist WMD factory, but no, the wrong terrorist in control, but ...ohhhhhhh my head hurts trying to follow the self-delusional rationalizations of the Bush-Haters...

next we have that little problem of al-Qaeda in Iraq...but i thought the libs claimed there wasn't al-Qaeda in Iraq, well.....they are in Iraq, but not working for Saddam, but they are al-Qaeda planning to terrorize Europe...ohhhhhhhhhh my headache is back.....

if you believe the article..then you have to believe the "facts" stated in the article.
the article states that al Qaeda was in Iraq
the article states that chemical weapons were being manufactured in Iraq for use against western countries.

the mental gymnastics comes in when you try to explain how these "facts" can be used to further discredit Bush, when you've already tried to discredit Bush by stating that there were no WMD's or al-Qaeda in Iraq...

so to believe this crap you have to buy into the idea that Saddam was a brutal dictator, that WMD's were being produced in Iraq, al-Qaeda was operational in Iraq.....but.....
none of these were related, and therefore, the invasion of Iraq was uncalled for....even though saddam was a brutal dictator, al-Qaeda was in Iraq, and WMD's were being manufactured there.....

ohh my head is starting to hurt again..so many contradictions, so much B.S.
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
But, But!!!! I thoght all the liberals said there were no WMDS?

Now there were WMD's and Bush did nothing to stop them except invade Iraq, capture Saddam, force Iraq to enact a new Constitution, and force then to modernize the schools....etc.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: maluckey
But, But!!!! I thoght all the liberals said there were no WMDS?

Now there were WMD's and Bush did nothing to stop them except invade Iraq, capture Saddam, force Iraq to enact a new Constitution, and force then to modernize the schools....etc.
Ricin and cyanide are not WMDs or WMD agents. Nice try though.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,266
5,838
126
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
WMD exist, what didn't/doesn't exist are Saddam's WMD
U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq,

ouuuuu. so many contradictions...i'm getting a headache trying to get a handle on this logic..
let's see.. no WMD in Iraq, well, yes, WMD in Iraq, but NO, not under Saddam's control..but still targeted against "western" countries...so still a terrorist WMD factory, but no, the wrong terrorist in control, but ...ohhhhhhh my head hurts trying to follow the self-delusional rationalizations of the Bush-Haters...

next we have that little problem of al-Qaeda in Iraq...but i thought the libs claimed there wasn't al-Qaeda in Iraq, well.....they are in Iraq, but not working for Saddam, but they are al-Qaeda planning to terrorize Europe...ohhhhhhhhhh my headache is back.....

if you believe the article..then you have to believe the "facts" stated in the article.
the article states that al Qaeda was in Iraq
the article states that chemical weapons were being manufactured in Iraq for use against western countries.

the mental gymnastics comes in when you try to explain how these "facts" can be used to further discredit Bush, when you've already tried to discredit Bush by stating that there were no WMD's or al-Qaeda in Iraq...

so to believe this crap you have to buy into the idea that Saddam was a brutal dictator, that WMD's were being produced in Iraq, al-Qaeda was operational in Iraq.....but.....
none of these were related, and therefore, the invasion of Iraq was uncalled for....even though saddam was a brutal dictator, al-Qaeda was in Iraq, and WMD's were being manufactured there.....

ohh my head is starting to hurt again..so many contradictions, so much B.S.

Your spin is confusing you.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
WTF are you bushies bleating about? Everyone knows that the Ansar al-Islam group was operating camps in Northern Iraq for god knows how long. Everyone knows that they were located in the autonomous Kurdish region outside of Saddam's control. Everyone knows they were tinkering with chemical weapons and there were thought to be ties between Ansar al-Islam and Al Qaeda. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Abu Musab Zarqawi was up there too doing who knows what. I guess the question of the day is: Why didn't we plug their camps with some nice cruise missiles before invading Iraq?

What did I read today on the CS Monitor? Oh yeah: "The whole issue of WMD (in Iraq) can now be inducted into the "Intelligence Twisting Hall of Fame" alongside other such events as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the Iran-Contra scandal."

So true. :)
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,266
5,838
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
WTF are you bushies bleating about? Everyone knows that the Ansar al-Islam group was operating camps in Northern Iraq for god knows how long. Everyone knows that they were located in the autonomous Kurdish region outside of Saddam's control. Everyone knows they were tinkering with chemical weapons and there were thought to be ties between Ansar al-Islam and Al Qaeda. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Abu Musab Zarqawi was up there too doing who knows what. I guess the question of the day is: Why didn't we plug their camps with some nice cruise missiles before invading Iraq?

What did I read today on the CS Monitor? Oh yeah: "The whole issue of WMD (in Iraq) can now be inducted into the "Intelligence Twisting Hall of Fame" alongside other such events as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the Iran-Contra scandal."

So true. :)

Instead of admitting Error, they have decided to Correct History.