How is Iraq an Integral part of the War on Terror

[OneOfTheseDays]

I'm sorry if I came of as condescending.

 

[jeremy806]

Saddam is a man does not value human life. Such a man is a problem to everyone, and must be removed from power. Bush saw this, and chose to act on it. His goal is a valid one, but his means to achieve that goal are not very pretty. Clearly, Iraq is related to the war on terror. The better question is, is this really the right approach to deal with Iraq and the right time to do so? Bush supporter say yes, others say no.

jeremy806

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Sadaam is a bad man yes. BUT, there are many more bad men out there who are far worse than Sadaam. Should we go after them next? No, it's preposterous. You can't invade a country because you think their leader is a bad man.
Iraq related to the war on terror? Show me the proof. Show me direct ties to Al Qaeda operatives and show me direct proof of Sadaam aiding them and plotting to attack the US.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Sadaam is a bad man yes. BUT, there are many more bad men out there who are far worse than Sadaam. Should we go after them next? No, it's preposterous. You can't invade a country because you think their leader is a bad man.
Iraq related to the war on terror? Show me the proof. Show me direct ties to Al Qaeda operatives and show me direct proof of Sadaam aiding them and plotting to attack the US.

Had you lived in the '30s, you probably would have been opposed to stopping Hitler too.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yes, I'm sure. Do some more research on the Anthrax and Botulism sent to Iraq. It went to their Ministry of Education. It was intended for studying strains of virii that are deadly to farm animals and people and came not from a government agency but from an agricultural firm in Virginia.This same firm ships strains of Anthrax and Botulism to countries around the world.

Nice try though.

Ah, dual use?

If you go to the link you can also read the following:

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]

July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]

February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]

(7) - The Riegle Report

Quoting a website whose primary purpose is to press the issue of Gulfwar disease? Please.

I have links as well:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/98062502_npo.html

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-chem.htm

and for the supposed US supply of biological weapons:

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry102802.asp

t is a sign that Saddam Hussein has truly entered the pantheon of the world's great evils that his creation is now, in sophisticated quarters, being blamed on the United States.

"We shipped seven strains of anthrax to Iraq between 1978 and 1988," New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof maintained in a recent column retailing the budding conventional wisdom about Saddam's unconventional weapons program: Namely, it's all our fault.

America did, in an understandable strategic calculation, back Saddam in his war in the early 1980s with the Ayatollah's Iran, a regime that called the United States the "Great Satan," took hundreds of American hostages and practically invented contemporary Islamic terrorism.

But to leap from this fact to the notion that the United States aided the Iraqi bio-weapons program is a slander. It is a convenient lie that undercuts the case for war by making President Bush's anti-Saddam campaign seem a fickle bait-and-switch, and bolsters the sly anti-Americanism of so many doves on Iraq.

"I think it's absolute nonsense," Richard Spertzel, the former head of the United Nations' biological inspections team in Iraq, says of the bio-weapons charge. "To help the program implies doing something consciously. There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that the U.S. did anything to help the Iraqi biological-weapons or chemical-weapons program on a knowledgeable basis."

The American Type Culture Collection, a Manassas, Va.,-based nonprofit that makes biological cultures and products available for research purposes around the world, shipped anthrax strains to Iraq in the 1980s ? providing the basis for the charge that "we" gave Saddam anthrax.

But the culture collection isn't an arm of the U.S. government. Nor did it intend to give the material to Iraq for nefarious purposes. The transfers occurred at a time when anthrax was still primarily thought of as a veterinary disease.

"Anthrax is found in nature," explains Michael Moodie of the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute. "People who want to do research for legitimate medical or other reasons have these strains."

Anthrax is caused by the spore-forming bacterium Bacillus anthracis and infects mostly cattle, sheep and the like, although humans can get it from infected animals.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it is common in agricultural regions in South and Central America, Southern and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and the Middle East ? including Iraq.

So it wasn't unusual for Iraq to gather strains of anthrax in the 1980s, as it did not just from the American Type Culture Collection, but also from the Paris-based Pasteur Institute.

One of the destinations for the strains was the University of Baghdad, which at the time, according to former inspector Spertzel, had a solid reputation.

It only seems scandalous that Iraq got anthrax from a U.S. source if today's attitude toward the disease is projected back 20 years. Anthrax began to secure its association with terror only with the revelation that the Soviet Union had a massive biological-weapons program and the discovery of the Iraqi program in 1995.

Iraq now maintains that its program used the anthrax strains from the United States, a way to score propaganda points by stamping its terror weapons "Made in the U.S.A." This, however, appears to be untrue.

"I found no hard indication that said that the U.S. strains were used in the program," says Terence Taylor of the International Institute for Strategic Studies and a former weapons inspector. "And I'm not alone in that point of view."

All this aside ? what if the United States did knowingly advance Iraqi unconventional weapons programs in the 1980s? Would that make it OK for Iraq to have these weapons programs now?

Of course not.

By pointing out the U.S.-Iraq anthrax connection, doves aren't making a serious policy point so much as reinforcing their attitude to American power, which they consider always in the wrong ? wrong when it supposedly gives Saddam anthrax, and wrong when it prepares to take it away.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yes, I'm sure. Do some more research on the Anthrax and Botulism sent to Iraq. It went to their Ministry of Education. It was intended for studying strains of virii that are deadly to farm animals and people and came not from a government agency but from an agricultural firm in Virginia.This same firm ships strains of Anthrax and Botulism to countries around the world.

Nice try though.

Ah, dual use?

If you go to the link you can also read the following:

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]

July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]

February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]

(7) - The Riegle Report

Quoting a website whose primary purpose is to press the issue of Gulfwar disease? Please.

I have links as well:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/98062502_npo.html

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-chem.htm

and for the supposed US supply of biological weapons:

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry102802.asp

t is a sign that Saddam Hussein has truly entered the pantheon of the world's great evils that his creation is now, in sophisticated quarters, being blamed on the United States.

"We shipped seven strains of anthrax to Iraq between 1978 and 1988," New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof maintained in a recent column retailing the budding conventional wisdom about Saddam's unconventional weapons program: Namely, it's all our fault.

America did, in an understandable strategic calculation, back Saddam in his war in the early 1980s with the Ayatollah's Iran, a regime that called the United States the "Great Satan," took hundreds of American hostages and practically invented contemporary Islamic terrorism.

But to leap from this fact to the notion that the United States aided the Iraqi bio-weapons program is a slander. It is a convenient lie that undercuts the case for war by making President Bush's anti-Saddam campaign seem a fickle bait-and-switch, and bolsters the sly anti-Americanism of so many doves on Iraq.

"I think it's absolute nonsense," Richard Spertzel, the former head of the United Nations' biological inspections team in Iraq, says of the bio-weapons charge. "To help the program implies doing something consciously. There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that the U.S. did anything to help the Iraqi biological-weapons or chemical-weapons program on a knowledgeable basis."

The American Type Culture Collection, a Manassas, Va.,-based nonprofit that makes biological cultures and products available for research purposes around the world, shipped anthrax strains to Iraq in the 1980s ? providing the basis for the charge that "we" gave Saddam anthrax.

But the culture collection isn't an arm of the U.S. government. Nor did it intend to give the material to Iraq for nefarious purposes. The transfers occurred at a time when anthrax was still primarily thought of as a veterinary disease.

"Anthrax is found in nature," explains Michael Moodie of the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute. "People who want to do research for legitimate medical or other reasons have these strains."

Anthrax is caused by the spore-forming bacterium Bacillus anthracis and infects mostly cattle, sheep and the like, although humans can get it from infected animals.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it is common in agricultural regions in South and Central America, Southern and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and the Middle East ? including Iraq.

So it wasn't unusual for Iraq to gather strains of anthrax in the 1980s, as it did not just from the American Type Culture Collection, but also from the Paris-based Pasteur Institute.

One of the destinations for the strains was the University of Baghdad, which at the time, according to former inspector Spertzel, had a solid reputation.

It only seems scandalous that Iraq got anthrax from a U.S. source if today's attitude toward the disease is projected back 20 years. Anthrax began to secure its association with terror only with the revelation that the Soviet Union had a massive biological-weapons program and the discovery of the Iraqi program in 1995.

Iraq now maintains that its program used the anthrax strains from the United States, a way to score propaganda points by stamping its terror weapons "Made in the U.S.A." This, however, appears to be untrue.

"I found no hard indication that said that the U.S. strains were used in the program," says Terence Taylor of the International Institute for Strategic Studies and a former weapons inspector. "And I'm not alone in that point of view."

All this aside ? what if the United States did knowingly advance Iraqi unconventional weapons programs in the 1980s? Would that make it OK for Iraq to have these weapons programs now?

Of course not.

By pointing out the U.S.-Iraq anthrax connection, doves aren't making a serious policy point so much as reinforcing their attitude to American power, which they consider always in the wrong ? wrong when it supposedly gives Saddam anthrax, and wrong when it prepares to take it away.

So you just ignored the financial times article and other articles?

They had NOTHNG to do with what you replied.

"Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons."

"April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas."

"July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians."

You can find this information in official reports, there is no question whether it is true or not.

Your diversions don't work very well.

Now i want to see conclusive evidence that France, Germany and Russia provided chemical or biological weapons that were actually USED against Iranians or Kurds.

Reports that have been verified is what i have provided, you do the same.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
So you just ignored the financial times article and other articles?

Did you ignore the National Review article?

They had NOTHNG to do with what you replied.

Please clarify. Who are "they" and how did it have nothing to do with what I replied?

"Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons."

It was a sale of dual-use matieral that could have been used in chemical weapons. Of course, there's no proof it actually was.

Besides, The ISG found plenty of pestiside plants in Iraq after the war was finished. An inordinate amount. Judging pestisides by the standards above, shall we then assume that WMDs have been found? Pestisides can easily be converted to chemical weapons.

"April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas."

More dual-use chemicals. It should read. "April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals that could be used in manufacture of mustard gas." Again, no proof they were though.

"July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians."

Cyanide also has valid chemical uses, particularly for producing medicines. Another dual-use chemical. If we don't ship it to them, then the left bitches that we are withholding much needed medicines from Iraq. Another no-win situation.

Hey, the graphite in pencils is a dual-use material as well. Remember when the US put the kabosh on shipping pencils to Iraq and the left threw a hissy-fit about it? Now they condemn the US either way. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Just as the article from the National Review stated:

By pointing out the U.S.-Iraq anthrax connection, doves aren't making a serious policy point so much as reinforcing their attitude to American power, which they consider always in the wrong ? wrong when it supposedly gives Saddam anthrax, and wrong when it prepares to take it away.

You can find this information in official reports, there is no question whether it is true or not.

Of course it's true. It's superficially true, just like many truths issued from the left. However, a deeper investigation of the details of those "thruths" tends to shed the light on what BS those same "truths" are. They are Michael Moore-isms. State a superficial fact without all the supporting details and permit the person receiving the information to conclude it's devious, when the supporting detail undr the surface say otherwise.

Your diversions don't work very well.

Hehe. Yeah. Right. Sorry but I'm not paying any attention to the man behind the curtain.

Now i want to see conclusive evidence that France, Germany and Russia provided chemical or biological weapons that were actually USED against Iranians or Kurds.

Reports that have been verified is what i have provided, you do the same.

You have not provided any sort of verification. Not a single report you provided definitely sources US materials as used in chemical and/or biological weapons in Iraq. Links I provided also back that up, so obviously you didn't even read them.

Try again if you want. Read the links I posted first. I read yours from the Gulfwar Disease website. Have the courtesy to do the same for me please.

 

[chess9]

Rip:
Almost everyone in the U.S. A. was opposed to stopping Hitler in the '30's, but most especially the Republicans.

TPAadmin:

Why doesn't that guy tell all these "true" facts to the 911 Commission? Sheezh, talk about trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

-Robert

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Klixxer
So you just ignored the financial times article and other articles?

Did you ignore the National Review article?

They had NOTHNG to do with what you replied.

Please clarify. Who are "they" and how did it have nothing to do with what I replied?

"Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons."

It was a sale of dual-use matieral that could have been used in chemical weapons. Of course, there's no proof it actually was.

Besides, The ISG found plenty of pestiside plants in Iraq after the war was finished. An inordinate amount. Judging pestisides by the standards above, shall we then assume that WMDs have been found? Pestisides can easily be converted to chemical weapons.

"April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas."

More dual-use chemicals. It should read. "April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals that could be used in manufacture of mustard gas." Again, no proof they were though.

"July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians."

Cyanide also has valid chemical uses, particularly for producing medicines. Another dual-use chemical. If we don't ship it to them, then the left bitches that we are withholding much needed medicines from Iraq. Another no-win situation.

Hey, the graphite in pencils is a dual-use material as well. Remember when the US put the kabosh on shipping pencils to Iraq and the left threw a hissy-fit about it? Now they condemn the US either way. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Just as the article from the National Review stated:

By pointing out the U.S.-Iraq anthrax connection, doves aren't making a serious policy point so much as reinforcing their attitude to American power, which they consider always in the wrong ? wrong when it supposedly gives Saddam anthrax, and wrong when it prepares to take it away.

You can find this information in official reports, there is no question whether it is true or not.

Of course it's true. It's superficially true, just like many truths issued from the left. However, a deeper investigation of the details of those "thruths" tends to shed the light on what BS those same "truths" are. They are Michael Moore-isms. State a superficial fact without all the supporting details and permit the person receiving the information to conclude it's devious, when the supporting detail undr the surface say otherwise.

Your diversions don't work very well.

Hehe. Yeah. Right. Sorry but I'm not paying any attention to the man behind the curtain.

Now i want to see conclusive evidence that France, Germany and Russia provided chemical or biological weapons that were actually USED against Iranians or Kurds.

Reports that have been verified is what i have provided, you do the same.

You have not provided any sort of verification. Not a single report you provided definitely sources US materials as used in chemical and/or biological weapons in Iraq. Links I provided also back that up, so obviously you didn't even read them.

Try again if you want. Read the links I posted first. I read yours from the Gulfwar Disease website. Have the courtesy to do the same for me please.

So then, point to something that is a WMD and that France, Germany and Russia exported that was NOT dual use.

I think i get it, if Germany were to sell Uranium to Iran today it would be ok, dual use and they said they would only use it for power plants.

Either you are extremely dense or you simply don't WANT to get it, i think the second choice is the right one..

Facts are, US supplied Iraq with chemicals to make mustard gas, sarin and cyanide gas, they trained them how to use these weapons. They supplied a known terrorist country (there was only ONE country that took them off the list of terrorist countries and who vetoed the resolutions condemning their actions, guess which) with anthrax and other strains of bactreria (not to the organiztion you claimed only, but also to a lot of other government owned facilities.

You can hide and run from it but it is still a fact.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
So then, point to something that is a WMD and that France, Germany and Russia exported that was NOT dual use.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html

How about the CW factories that Germany helped build in Samarra and Al-Fallujah?

Again, it doesn't seem you read the links I provided. If there wasn't any evidence against Germany, then why this:

The investigators gathered incriminating evidence and seized large quantities of chemical materials and equipment weighing about four tons while hundreds of witnesses testified. The West German government filed an official lawsuit in the spring of 1991 and the criminal court charged seven senior officials in the large German company of providing the defunct regime with essential components to manufacture chemical weapons in the Samarra complex and the Al-Fallujah complex. By 1989, Germany's huge role had turned Iraq into the biggest country in the Middle East producing gases that can be used in warfare. An Iraqi ambassador attending the Paris conference on chemical weapons has stated, "Iraq is now receiving a huge number of persistent requests from Third World countries that want to buy Iraqi chemical weapons".

I think i get it, if Germany were to sell Uranium to Iran today it would be ok, dual use and they said they would only use it for power plants.

Considering Iraq has no nuclear power plants at this time, that's highly doubtful.

Either you are extremely dense or you simply don't WANT to get it, i think the second choice is the right one..

Is that the best you can do? Call someone dense because they don't agree with your insistence that the US is TEH DEVIL INCARNATE and the cause of all evil when the available facts say differently? How lame.

Facts are, US supplied Iraq with chemicals to make mustard gas, sarin and cyanide gas, they trained them how to use these weapons. They supplied a known terrorist country (there was only ONE country that took them off the list of terrorist countries and who vetoed the resolutions condemning their actions, guess which) with anthrax and other strains of bactreria (not to the organiztion you claimed only, but also to a lot of other government owned facilities.

You can hide and run from it but it is still a fact.

You haven't proven crap and your only "facts" become innuendo upon scrutiny.

Keep your "I hate America" blinders firmly fastened though and simply ignore the truth.

 

[Red Dawn]

How is Iraq an Integral part of the War on Terror

It wasn't until we invaded it. Thanks to the Dub and his nefarious network of Neocons Iraq now is the main recruiting grounds for Anti American Terrorists.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

How is Iraq an Integral part of the War on Terror

It wasn't until we invaded it. Thanks to the Dub and his nefarious network of Neocons Iraq now is the main recruiting grounds for Anti American Terrorists.

Exactly. Makes you feel bad for the Iraqi's, no wonder they want us out of there so badly. As long as our troops are in Iraq the violence will continue.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

How is Iraq an Integral part of the War on Terror

It wasn't until we invaded it. Thanks to the Dub and his nefarious network of Neocons Iraq now is the main recruiting grounds for Anti American Terrorists.

OMG! What have we done?

Iraq loved us before the neocons came along. The kite flyng; the butterflies...man, the neocons ruined everything.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

How is Iraq an Integral part of the War on Terror

It wasn't until we invaded it. Thanks to the Dub and his nefarious network of Neocons Iraq now is the main recruiting grounds for Anti American Terrorists.

OMG! What have we done?

Iraq loved us before the neocons came along. The kite flyng; the butterflies...man, the neocons ruined everything.

so everyone who doesnt like the US is somehow a terrorist?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

How is Iraq an Integral part of the War on Terror

It wasn't until we invaded it. Thanks to the Dub and his nefarious network of Neocons Iraq now is the main recruiting grounds for Anti American Terrorists.

OMG! What have we done?

Iraq loved us before the neocons came along. The kite flyng; the butterflies...man, the neocons ruined everything.

Kind of makes you scratch your head when the Bush Apologists and the Neocons now use the "Libersate the Iraqis from the evil Bastard" qualifier for their excellent Adventure into Iraq now that all their other reasons have proven to be BS or wrong.

 

[StageLeft]

Honestly, it's not really.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

How is Iraq an Integral part of the War on Terror

It wasn't until we invaded it. Thanks to the Dub and his nefarious network of Neocons Iraq now is the main recruiting grounds for Anti American Terrorists.

OMG! What have we done?

Iraq loved us before the neocons came along. The kite flyng; the butterflies...man, the neocons ruined everything.

Kind of makes you scratch your head when the Bush Apologists and the Neocons now use the "Libersate the Iraqis from the evil Bastard" qualifier for their excellent Adventure into Iraq now that all their other reasons have proven to be BS or wrong.

They "now" use that qualifier? iirc, it was one of the many reasons provided by Bush before the war even began.

If you want to pretend that the reasons provided for going into Iraq are akin to The Highlander, "There can only be one!" then help yourself.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

How is Iraq an Integral part of the War on Terror

It wasn't until we invaded it. Thanks to the Dub and his nefarious network of Neocons Iraq now is the main recruiting grounds for Anti American Terrorists.

OMG! What have we done?

Iraq loved us before the neocons came along. The kite flyng; the butterflies...man, the neocons ruined everything.

Kind of makes you scratch your head when the Bush Apologists and the Neocons now use the "Libersate the Iraqis from the evil Bastard" qualifier for their excellent Adventure into Iraq now that all their other reasons have proven to be BS or wrong.

They "now" use that qualifier? iirc, it was one of the many reasons provided by Bush before the war even began.

If you want to pretend that the reasons provided for going into Iraq are akin to The Highlander, "There can only be one!" then help yourself.

No I would never use a crappy movie to pretend anything regarding something as serious as our blunder in Iraq.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

How is Iraq an Integral part of the War on Terror

It wasn't until we invaded it. Thanks to the Dub and his nefarious network of Neocons Iraq now is the main recruiting grounds for Anti American Terrorists.

OMG! What have we done?

Iraq loved us before the neocons came along. The kite flyng; the butterflies...man, the neocons ruined everything.

Kind of makes you scratch your head when the Bush Apologists and the Neocons now use the "Libersate the Iraqis from the evil Bastard" qualifier for their excellent Adventure into Iraq now that all their other reasons have proven to be BS or wrong.

They "now" use that qualifier? iirc, it was one of the many reasons provided by Bush before the war even began.

If you want to pretend that the reasons provided for going into Iraq are akin to The Highlander, "There can only be one!" then help yourself.

No I would never use a crappy movie to pretend anything regarding something as serious as our blunder in Iraq.

I hope that includes Fahrenheit 9/11?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

How is Iraq an Integral part of the War on Terror

It wasn't until we invaded it. Thanks to the Dub and his nefarious network of Neocons Iraq now is the main recruiting grounds for Anti American Terrorists.

OMG! What have we done?

Iraq loved us before the neocons came along. The kite flyng; the butterflies...man, the neocons ruined everything.

Kind of makes you scratch your head when the Bush Apologists and the Neocons now use the "Libersate the Iraqis from the evil Bastard" qualifier for their excellent Adventure into Iraq now that all their other reasons have proven to be BS or wrong.

They "now" use that qualifier? iirc, it was one of the many reasons provided by Bush before the war even began.

If you want to pretend that the reasons provided for going into Iraq are akin to The Highlander, "There can only be one!" then help yourself.

No I would never use a crappy movie to pretend anything regarding something as serious as our blunder in Iraq.

I hope that includes Fahrenheit 9/11?

Never seen it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

How is Iraq an Integral part of the War on Terror

It wasn't until we invaded it. Thanks to the Dub and his nefarious network of Neocons Iraq now is the main recruiting grounds for Anti American Terrorists.

OMG! What have we done?

Iraq loved us before the neocons came along. The kite flyng; the butterflies...man, the neocons ruined everything.

Kind of makes you scratch your head when the Bush Apologists and the Neocons now use the "Libersate the Iraqis from the evil Bastard" qualifier for their excellent Adventure into Iraq now that all their other reasons have proven to be BS or wrong.

They "now" use that qualifier? iirc, it was one of the many reasons provided by Bush before the war even began.

If you want to pretend that the reasons provided for going into Iraq are akin to The Highlander, "There can only be one!" then help yourself.

No I would never use a crappy movie to pretend anything regarding something as serious as our blunder in Iraq.

I hope that includes Fahrenheit 9/11?

Never seen it.

You should. It's a wonderful documentary...on how to distort facts and spew propaganda and rhetoric like a diarrhetic elephant.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
[If you want to pretend that the reasons provided for going into Iraq are akin to The Highlander, "There can only be one!" then help yourself.

No I would never use a crappy movie to pretend anything regarding something as serious as our blunder in Iraq.

I hope that includes Fahrenheit 9/11?

Never seen it.
[/quote]

You should. It's a wonderful documentary...on how to distort facts and spew propaganda and rhetoric like a diarrhetic elephant.
[/quote]

Nah if I want to watch that crap I'd just turn on Hannity and Colmes on Fox News.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
[If you want to pretend that the reasons provided for going into Iraq are akin to The Highlander, "There can only be one!" then help yourself.

No I would never use a crappy movie to pretend anything regarding something as serious as our blunder in Iraq.

I hope that includes Fahrenheit 9/11?

Never seen it.

You should. It's a wonderful documentary...on how to distort facts and spew propaganda and rhetoric like a diarrhetic elephant.
[/quote]

Nah if I want to watch that crap I'd just turn on Hannity and Colmes on Fox News.[/quote]

Never seen it.

 

[GrGr]

"You should. It's a wonderful documentary...on how to distort facts and spew propaganda and rhetoric like a diarrhetic elephant. "

Bush the Chimp is still the Champ at distorting facts, spewing propaganda and rhetoric.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GrGr
"You should. It's a wonderful documentary...on how to distort facts and spew propaganda and rhetoric like a diarrhetic elephant. "

Bush the Chimp is still the Champ at distorting facts, spewing propaganda and rhetoric.

Dan Rather has recently usurped that role.