It is truth he can't deny, that is why he posted the answer he did to you. The declassification of documents from his administration reveal the truth.
gop saint regan and poison gas
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
It is truth he can't deny, that is why he posted the answer he did to you. The declassification of documents from his administration reveal the truth.
Taft2016
Verified User
So.... you agree with President Bush that some drastic action needed to be taken to ensure there was not a recurrence of Saddam's use of chemical weapons?
maineman
Banned
alas... there was no threat of any recurrence. I suspected as much, and KNEW that Bush was LYING when he stated, AS FACT, that "there was no doubt" that Saddam possessed stockpiles of such weapons.
Taft2016
Verified User
Oh yes, that's right. The United Nations weapons inspections, which at the very same time were being subverted by multiple nations violating the United Nations oil embargo, an undermining effort spearheaded by no less than the United Nations Secretary General's very own son. And reports of weapons which were influenced here in the USA by Scott Ritter, convicted internet child predator, whose reports fluctuated depending upon how many underage girls Saddam fed him.
Yes, that effort. That got rid of all of the chemical weapons.
The conversation so far:
Regan (sic) sold chemical weapons to Saddam.
OK, so Regan (sic) didn't actually sell them to Saddam, but he didn't care when Saddam used them.
Bush didn't care either, he lied.
The Liberal Lilypad Leapfrogging is expected to continue....
There was action taken and Saddam had no chemical weapons. His was bluster and posturing so that his enemies, specifically Iran, was not aware that his ability to strike was now limited.
Last edited:
Taft2016
Verified User
No, I'm quite sorry.
There is proof that the chemical weapons existed because they were used.
There is no proof of their ultimate fate between 1988 and 2003.
You have a *THEORY* that the weapons inspectors found them all. But that's just a theory. And a very weak theory based on the totality of the circumstances such as Saddam constantly interfering with international weapons inspections teams, denying the access they wanted, etc., in violation of agreements he made as a condition of the cease fire, weapons inspectors coming from countries giving the oil embargo the old wink-and-nod, etc.
At the end of his second term Bill Clinton was saying the chemical weapons were still there. In the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq he was saying they were there.
To say only Bush was "lying" is disingenuous partisanship and willful ignorance.
And... Regan (sic) didn't sell chemical weapons to Saddam.
Taft2016
Verified User
Which would also make Bill Clinton a liar... but that had already been established.
Where's your proof that Bush was lying? He had no doubt... and just because a few intelligence underlings had doubt does not make him a liar. His readings of the intelligence were shared by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.
Liars all?
You *THINK* the weapons were not there when Bush said they were. But you have no proof. None. Zero.
Nor do I have proof that they were there. All I know for sure is that at one point they undoubtedly existed.
just like I know that Regan (sic) did not sell chemical weapons to Saddam.
maineman
Banned
Bush didn't say that HE had no doubt... he said that THERE WAS NO DOUBT. the first is a statement of opinion.. the second, a statement of fact. and the second was a lie, because there WAS doubt.. sorry. Is English your second language, perhaps?
Taft2016
Verified User
I can give an analogy that even the most demented libtard could follow. Suppose you are a drug dealer and the police come knocking at your door:
Police: We understand you're dealing drugs here. We'd like to come inside and have a look around.
Libtard: No way! Go get a warrant!
Police: OK. I'm going to go back to the station house, draw up a complaint, and bring it to a judge first thing Monday morning to swear out a search warrant. We'll back either Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning.
Question: Does even the most demented libtard believe for a second that the drugs will still be there when the police return?
Saddam had weeks... months... to ditch his shit.
But no... the braindead mantras sound so much better.
Squawk! Squawk! Squawk!
Bush lied! Bush lied!
Squawk! Squawk! Squawk!
Halliburton! Cheney!
Squawk! Squawk! Squawk!
Police: We understand you're dealing drugs here. We'd like to come inside and have a look around.
Libtard: No way! Go get a warrant!
Police: OK. I'm going to go back to the station house, draw up a complaint, and bring it to a judge first thing Monday morning to swear out a search warrant. We'll back either Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning.
Question: Does even the most demented libtard believe for a second that the drugs will still be there when the police return?
Saddam had weeks... months... to ditch his shit.
But no... the braindead mantras sound so much better.
Squawk! Squawk! Squawk!
Bush lied! Bush lied!
Squawk! Squawk! Squawk!
Halliburton! Cheney!
Squawk! Squawk! Squawk!
Taft2016
Verified User
If that's how you apply the definition, then clearly Obama is a much bigger liar.
No country came forward to say Saddam did not have chemical weapons.
Two countries (so far) have come forward to say Assad did not use chemical weapons. So clearly, Obama is the bigger liar.
1991, the United States of America entered Iraq and destroyed large stockpiles of chemical weapons and destroyed the means to manufacture them, sanction were imposed to the point that in 1998 the United States ask that the inspections be discontinued.
No chemical weapons were used on the troops or found in Iraq in 2003 when the United States once again invaded and this time occupied Iraq.
George Bush was convinced by his administration. It was obvious why Bush was picked as a candidate and used by the likes of Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney Pearle and Bolton. Bush was guilty of stupidity. He wanted to get Saddam. Weapons of Mass destruction was a way they could sell the war to the people and indeed, they did.
Taft2016
Verified User
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
You lie so crooked you could sleep inside a trombone.
Frogs have lots of practice hopping from from lilypad to another.
No, Clinton lied as well, remember when the right claimed this as well, something about wagging the dog, you are talking to the wrong gal on this, if you think I am going to defend Clinton and his bombing campaign.
Scott Ritter has since changed his story on Iraq and the weapons. He states that they were basically disarmed when Bush 41 went into Iraq. There were no hidden caches.
I supported Clinton at first, then the more I read, the more I learned that both sides lie.
I do not support military actions in most cases.