Oops!

C

Conscience

New member
"If the Bush administration had known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it probably wouldn't have decided to invade in 2003, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an interview broadcast Sunday."

Which is why you DON'T invade countries without proper evidence!
 
Conscience said:
"If the Bush administration had known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it probably wouldn't have decided to invade in 2003, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an interview broadcast Sunday."

Which is why you DON'T invade countries without proper evidence!
Click to expand...

Donald Rumsfeld has an agenda.

He's also a mass murderer in my opinion.
 
bravo said:
Its good to know your opinion don't mean spit.
Click to expand...

Well, looking back on everything; attacking Iraq was a stupid thing to do, which has put us in a very bad position.

He should of attacked Iran. He had enough proof that they are behind all the terrorist acts.

I mean they chant everyday, Death to America. Not to mention that they want a nuke.
 
Conscience said:
"If the Bush administration had known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it probably wouldn't have decided to invade in 2003, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an interview broadcast Sunday."

Which is why you DON'T invade countries without proper evidence!
Click to expand...

This link was posted on another thread. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3165309591520786688#docid=-5309296823789904213

A good video on the Iraq war, the evidence and the lead-up.
 
even saddam's generals thought he had WMDs...

that said, is this an outright apology? if so, bush needs to step up and tell the american people he screwed up.
 
Liberty said:
Well, looking back on everything; attacking Iraq was a stupid thing to do, which has put us in a very bad position.

He should of attacked Iran. He had enough proof that they are behind all the terrorist acts.

I mean they chant everyday, Death to America. Not to mention that they want a nuke.
Click to expand...

I guess his opinion is about as valuable as yours the
 
Conscience said:
"If the Bush administration had known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it probably wouldn't have decided to invade in 2003, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an interview broadcast Sunday."

Which is why you DON'T invade countries without proper evidence!
Click to expand...

They made the decision to invade well before 2003. And in 2003, Hans Blix told Congress his team had unfettered access to every suspected weapons site in Iraq. They could have waited.
 
Liberty said:
Well, looking back on everything; attacking Iraq was a stupid thing to do, which has put us in a very bad position.

He should of attacked Iran. He had enough proof that they are behind all the terrorist acts.

I mean they chant everyday, Death to America. Not to mention that they want a nuke.
Click to expand...
Though by no account the only reason it was the straw that broke the Camels back and forced me to leave the Republican party in 2003.Then again they made it perfectly clear to me too that there was no room for moderates in the party and to not let the door hit my ass on the way out.

It didn't. :)
 
Onceler said:
They made the decision to invade well before 2003. And in 2003, Hans Blix told Congress his team had unfettered access to every suspected weapons site in Iraq. They could have waited.
Click to expand...
History...

In 1998, the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act".

The act made it official U.S. policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power..."
although it also made clear that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces."
----------------------------------------------------
Before the election in 2000...
The Republican Party's campaign platform in the 2000 election called for "full implementation" of the Iraq Liberation Act and removal of Saddam Hussein;

Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, advocates of invading Iraq, contributed to a September 2000 report from the Project for the New American Century that argued for using an invasion of Iraq as a means for the U.S. to "play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security..
 
bravo said:
History...

In 1998, the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act".

The act made it official U.S. policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power..."
although it also made clear that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces."
----------------------------------------------------
Before the election in 2000...
The Republican Party's campaign platform in the 2000 election called for "full implementation" of the Iraq Liberation Act and removal of Saddam Hussein;

Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, advocates of invading Iraq, contributed to a September 2000 report from the Project for the New American Century that argued for using an invasion of Iraq as a means for the U.S. to "play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security..
Click to expand...

Of course; how could I forget.

Clinton made the decision to invade Iraq.

Bush was helpless to do anything about it....
 
Onceler said:
...although it also made clear that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces."
Click to expand...
Of course; how could I forget.

Clinton made the decision to invade Iraq.

Bush was helpless to do anything about it....
Click to expand...
LOL Do you have ANY idea what a moron you make yourself out to be every time you pull out your bullshit strawman lies? The average 5 year old demonstrates better reading comprehension than you do.

The POINT (which, as always, passed straight over your head) is Bush was not the only one who felt getting rid of Saddam was a very good idea. Bush & cronies were also not the only ones who believed Saddam had hidden stockpiles of chemical weapons, and possible components of bio-weapons, nor were they the only ones of the opinion that Saddam holding those weapons was a threat to international peace. In fact the only ones who did NOT feel Saddam was a threat were the molar-sucking morons who helped him gain power to combat Iran.

That said, a ground war was an asininely stupid and unnecessarily expensive - in lives and dollars - way to deal with the situation.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Though by no account the only reason it was the straw that broke the Camels back and forced me to leave the Republican party in 2003.Then again they made it perfectly clear to me too that there was no room for moderates in the party and to not let the door hit my ass on the way out.

It didn't. :)
Click to expand...

When the going gets tough, the weak run away.
 
Onceler said:
Of course; how could I forget.

Clinton made the decision to invade Iraq.

Bush was helpless to do anything about it....
Click to expand...
Holy Shit sonny...is your reading comprehension that fuckin' bad....:palm:

You must have a hell of time reading the newspaper or even a comic book....

Try getting a 7 or 8 year old to read and explain my post to you....someone that speaks on your own level....
===

Thats how Bush got in trouble with Saddam and 9/11....

you pinheads can't separate stand alone facts into separate, unconnected issues.......

I shouldn't have mentioned Clinton and Bush in the same post....its obviously overwhelming and makes it too complicated for you.....
 
Good Luck said:
LOL Do you have ANY idea what a moron you make yourself out to be every time you pull out your bullshit strawman lies? The average 5 year old demonstrates better reading comprehension than you do.

The POINT (which, as always, passed straight over your head) is Bush was not the only one who felt getting rid of Saddam was a very good idea. Bush & cronies were also not the only ones who believed Saddam had hidden stockpiles of chemical weapons, and possible components of bio-weapons, nor were they the only ones of the opinion that Saddam holding those weapons was a threat to international peace. In fact the only ones who did NOT feel Saddam was a threat were the molar-sucking morons who helped him gain power to combat Iran.

That said, a ground war was an asininely stupid and unnecessarily expensive - in lives and dollars - way to deal with the situation.
Click to expand...

The POINT is even clearer than that....the option to invade Iraq was not a secret....it was pretty clear it was on the table even before Bush was even elected....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top