Was W right about WMDs ?

Hardly, and not from uncle Rupert in any case. just stories for the minions.

Even if it's true, and that's doubtful, it was not what Bush was claiming we went to war for. and if Saddam had them , or ever intended to use them, why didn't he once he knew it he was close to losing it all?

















Stay thirsty my friends
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-15-14 AT 09:33AM (MST)[p]In one word NO! We helped create these WMD's and it wasn't what we supposedly went to Iraq for but if it makes you feel better twist it simpletons will probably believe it.

I find it interesting how both the hard right and left misrepresent things and how people pick up misunderstood information to meet their agenda. An incredible example is a group of local wingnuts that are spreading the idea that the government is trying to limit the population by introducing the Ebola Virus into vaccines. Not working so well with only 2 cases so far in the country.

Crazy people aren't just on the internet they are among us.
 
Isn't this about the 1,347th unproven claim of wmd's discovered in Iraq?

Hell I don't doubt there were a few Saddam didn't know he had. I find .22 shells someplace all the time.

Iraq was a mistake any wany you slice it. a few cans of bug spray won't redeem that disaster.













Stay thirsty my friends
 
These were likely just what was forgotten when he move his chemical weapons to Syria prior to us invading. You liberal cows moo for a decade about the big lie but are not man enough to ever admit you might have been wrong. Go to your Obama rally and do the goose step all the way.
 
Salon???.....lol


"As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron."
- H.L. Mencken, the Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
 
So for over a decade, you (liberals) have been saying that Bush was wrong because we did not find ANY WMDs.
Now that WMDs have been admitted to by the same liberal media, they are going to apply qualifiers so they don't have to admit that the shrill screaming we have been forced to listen to for so long, was in fact, pure bull chit.
Yes, Iraq was a horrible quagmire of krap that Bush jumped into with a blindfold on, but that is not the complaint we have been hearing.
So, before we move on to all the other things you are wrong about, can't you just man up and admit you were wrong about this ?
 
They were old junk , not the weapons Bush said Saddam was building. if they were so useful why didn't Saddam use them? or was he ever a threat in the first place?

If Bush didn't consider them worthy WMD's then why are they today?

Answer the question.


















Stay thirsty my friends
 
"if they were so useful why didn't Saddam use them".
Very simple dimwit. After Saddam saw that Bush had the brass ones to mount an invasion, Saddam knew that if he used WMDs on our troops, Bush would unleash massive destruction on all of his military targets with little regards to collateral casualties. Saddam, unlike you, was smart enough to know that anywhere he may be hiding, or his military staff hiding would be considered a military target of prime importance and they would bomb it to total destruction.

Bush was feared, not like the rabbit we have in the white house now. Quite a few of our troops who became exposed to certain chemical agents stumbled across storage sites where the weapons were stockpiled.

RELH
 
I'm not talking about what Sadam had, I'm talking about what you have been screaming about.
You were wrong.
It's OK to be wrong, but Liberals have been screaming this at the top of their lungs for over a decade.
Wrong.
They entire liberal political movement, including 90% of the main stream media owes conservatives, President G.W. Bush and the whole world an apology.
 
Saddam was afraid to use them? that's funny. what might happen to him if he had? they might hang him? do you think he figured if he played nice they's set him up in the Hamptons after the war? that's how muslims do it isn't it? you're a idiot .

Everyone knew he had some leftover junk , WTF is the news there? he had it from before Bush's dad was president. for christs sake get in the game.

Saddam did not posses stockpiles of WMD's was not building WMD's as Bush claimed to take us to war.

You didn't answer the question, if Bush figured this would exonerate him why didn't he show us the old rusty stuff 10 years ago? com'on now let's hear it.




Stay thirsty my friends
 
Very simple. Most got shipped out to Syria and the president of that country ended up using it on his own people.
As for Saddam not having nukes that he was trying to develop, good old Israel took care of that problem with a sneak air strike.
Something Our in white house rabbit should be thinking about doing with Iran.

RELH
 
I would say that curveball's creditability is at question. Did he lie then or is he lying now.

RELH
 
Since nothing he said turned out to be true, I'd have to say he was lying then.













Stay thirsty my friends
 
That would indicate it somewhat lets Bush and his Admin. off the hook for being liars. They just failed to collaborate the lying S.O.B.

What Obama and Admin. said about the attack on our embassy and killing of 4 Americans is the perfect example of a deliberate outright lie to fool the American public.

RELH
 
You've spent millions of taxpayer dollars trying to prove that for over two years. how's that going?

Even if you're right, it wasn't intentional like the Iraq war was. and Bush's fiasco has an over 1000 to 1 needless body count on Obama. but what's a few thousand dead americans when Hillary is involved right?













Stay thirsty my friends
 
Gee Dude, you said it was old rusty junk and no arsenal of WMD, yet that report states over 5 thousand bombs and artillery shells found. You also better take a sober gander, not drunk gander at the dates given in the report. Goes well into Obama's term as president. You going to paint him as well as you did Bush. Darn idiot drunk, you are your own worse enemy.

RELH
 
That doesn't matter, Obama wasn't the one who went to war looking for something that didn't exist.

What we found was a health hazzard we helped create. or now is the reason we went is so we could clean up the environment for the nice Iraqies?

So we went for the WMD's that didn't exist, then it was for the nice Iraqies we slaughtered , now it was for environmental clean up. next it will be so would could get them cell phone service.















Stay thirsty my friends
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-17-14 AT 09:57AM (MST)[p]It appears the false narrative has some big holes in it. DUD is always too quick to skim anything he posts rather than really read it and it winds up supporting the other guy.

It's like his old standby body bag argument he keeps throwing it out there yet overlooks history in that LBJ filled many times more body bags than the Bush's did combined and what did he accomplish in that damn mess and we aren't dredging that damn mess up on every post. All those men made the ultimate sacrifice in service to this country yet he keeps using their death to exploit his agenda. Casualty's are a byproduct of any military engagement and while tragic hopefully resulted in the better good for mankind in the end. Bush ridded the world of a major funder and supporter of terrorism in the world at that time.

Then he likes to blame all the recent turmoil on Bush when he's been gone for quite a while. During the modern era democrats and their actions have resulted in more body bags filled around the world than the GOP could even imagine. History supports it and when confronted with the facts DUD is usually outgunned.

Let's take our recent campaign against ISIS we have taken to making air strikes against unmanned Nissan pickups and other pieces of equipment and calling them victory's..... wow that's a monumental waste of firepower think how much we could do if we attacked them when they were filled with ISIS terrorists!

Now anyone that's actually been to the middle east knows there's usually some distance between cites and that distance is covered by terrain that troop movements usually can be easily detected, especially troop movements where they're moving troops and heavy weapons in many areas. One would think even the most lowly educated West Point grad would understand that at this time they're very vulnerable to attack and little chance to defend or escape undetected. So why are we not fighting to maximize damage to ISIS instead of minimalize it.

Why not hit them then when they're moving and maximize the effectiveness of your air power! But our military's not controlling this campaign contrary to the narrative. But for some reason we don't hear of victory's like those yet opportunity exists whenever they mobilize to their next objective. Yet we hear about ISIS victory's and atrocity's on an ongoing basis. Hmm One would think the most formidable military force in the world would be able to inflict some major damage if allowed to control it's destiny.


Obama's head in the sand so called " no involvement" management style isn't helping mankind but it's sure doing a damn fine job of creating chaos and eliminating it. By the time this fools completed his term, Obamination is going to be far worse on mankind, our economy, and our standing around the world than ebola will ever be.
 
You must really be drunk as hell to post up that incoherent babble. Give it up DUD the world knows they existed and you trying to tell us they didn't isn't going to change the facts. Other leaders throughout the world knew they existed and didn't want them used against them in their countries.... think the French and British and Germans had any terrorist bombings on their soil during that time frame. Wake up you damn moron the jigs up the emperor has no clothes. Be a man you're showing your flabby azz you drunken fool. The narrative has been uncovered and it's as false as the BS you're trying to sling to save face.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-17-14 AT 11:14AM (MST)[p]








WTF is that about? can you try to stick to the topic for once jesus christ.

The so called WMD's we found were old chit we helped put there. nothing whatsoever Bush was looking for that's why he didn't toot his horn.

Here this will seem like rocket science to you even though it's comedy, but it might help you understand.



http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/aywapn/abandoned-wmds-in-iraq---c-j--chivers












Stay thirsty my friends
 
You can cut your crap dumbazz. I'll try to make this easy for your simple mind to comprehend. Let's see you reload don't you. Ever reuse a shell casing well guess what they can reload many chemical weapons too smart guy.

How can you tell how many times a case has been reloaded by just looking at it? Can you tell if it has powder in it by just looking at it? How do you tell if a WMD is viable just by looking at it from a distance? The Iraqi's were supposed to destroy all chemical weapons after the first engagement as a term in their surrender it didn't happen... gee why? Now try to think of the variables.....See why your little narrative and your simple mind can't fathom how they still could have potentially fresh WMD's in all those stock piles. Oops you've fallen behind again ......LOL

By the way you still haven't explained how we had vets exposed in the second engagement to chemical weapons and are being treated since they didn't have any.

I think you may want to factor in the VA doesn't always disclose the true source of illness on many types of symptoms they're treating vets for into you figures. Let's not forget many things related to this are still classified! Why would they do that? WTFU. LOL
 
Bill Clinton was president for 8 years before Bush Jr. Are you saying that Clinton helped put those WMDs there that Bush went looking for?

RELH
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-17-14 AT 03:47PM (MST)[p]No but I believe it was Bill Clinton that bombed Iraq and Saddam Hussein while President because he had evidence that they possessed or were working on WMD's. That guy may be the same one you're referring too. Kind of interesting isn't it Clinton bombed them because he suspected they had nukes, chemical weapons and were funding terrorists and Bush Jr does it and it becomes wrong...

See DUD Dec 16 1998 is a date you should remember it's when Clinton bombed them because Hussein wouldn't submit to inspections and to take the heat off himself during his impeachment mess.

Here's a few quotes from leading democrats for you to see how they felt about bombing Hussein some of the same ones that approved Bush's action and saw the evidence.

ALL of these people knew too!

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO DUD do you want to keep going down this rocky road since your recollection of history is as flawed as your drunken memory and that rather flawed narrative you keep expousing as complete fact. By the way notice how much democratic support Clinton had isn't it ironic that they knew he had WMD's then and knew he still had them when Bush went after him........ Notice how many of those quotes were after Dec 16.1998. What's wrong DUD is your narrative crumbling.... who's intell were they using then?.... Why was one of Hussein's top commanders Named Chemical Allie...

I guess this would be the place where you tried to cover your flabby azz again! LOL
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

2022 Deer 3.png
Screenshot_20220107-151831_Gallery.jpg
EBDCEACF-981B-4FDE-B4A1-FCB297BD2C5A.jpeg
5800DFD0-706E-45AB-AE98-BB9F4480CD7A.png
IMG_5103 copy.jpg
20201003_072151.jpg
IMG_1161.png
2987553B-1931-416C-8950-26E519351069.jpeg
IMG_2463.jpeg
6B3E6B28-2EA1-4FE8-98C0-2AF9478C36C7.png
AD5E4F7C-91B6-4B84-AFA1-11A35631451D.jpeg
Screenshot_20220723-185457.png
Back
Top Bottom