Man! This is just so embarassing. They did find WMDs in Iraq.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

[COLOR="Black"]
[SIZE="3"]While your dumb-ass missed what constitutes the definition of "invasion", Ekim the Inbred Chimp:

]

Pull down your skirt bitch your fat ass is showing.

[thebuffmantraples]

You guys know JDB is delusional. Wonder if he will ever figure it out. Short Buse all the way for him. Sorry BarleyBoob I promise I will never post on your threads. Such a special guy.

Get some help buddy.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

This line is about as bad as the weeks following an Obaminable bullshit statement in which the media and some White House "mouth pieces" start explaining what Obaminable "REALLY MEANT TO SAY" .... !!!

It's an "affliction" that liberals have ...

..... can't talk sense so they have to have it explained by everyone else!!!

"You can keep your doctor if you like your doctor" .... You can .....

and it was a video that started the "riot"!!!

Now we got: "Don't worry about Ebola" ... "It's the nurses fault for getting it"!

The nurse didn't follow the protocols .... that were in place for the Ebola that could not come to this country and get anyone infected with the Ebola virus.

There were no WMD's in Iraq to justify the invasion, because they weren't really WMD's, just a stock pile of old rusted cases containing mustard gas, which is why the U.N. didn't find them while the INSPECTORS were there, and they failed to mention them in their reports .... so we can continue to say Bush was lying, and then if they are found, we can say that he knew they were there all along, so he wasn't lying back then, but now he is lying by not telling everyone WMD's were found in Iraq, even though it was published in the newspaper that no one ever reads.

All of the above demonstrates how intellectually superior are liberals ....

... so they believe.

Then President Clinton ... December 16, 1998:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

"Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html

Your affliction is stupidity. You and your retarded brother, the admiral, aren't very good at analogies.

Let's review:

1. Clinton bombing campaign: 4 days
Bush invasion of Iraq: 8 years, 9 months

2. US casualties from Clinton bombing campaign: 0
US casualties from Bush invasion of Iraq: 4,500 dead, 33,000 wounded

3. Cost of Clinton bombing campaign: No idea but I am thinking less than a trillion.
Cost of Bush invasion of Iraq: $1,000,000,000,000 +++

Questions about the differences between the two? Asshat.

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Looks like Al Gore, John Kerry and Madeline Albright were right = Saddam Hussein (Iraq) had WMDs !

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/...e-version-3-0/

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by timpage

Your affliction is stupidity. You and your retarded brother, the admiral, aren't very good at analogies.

Let's review:

1. Clinton bombing campaign: 4 days
Bush invasion of Iraq: 8 years, 9 months

2. US casualties from Clinton bombing campaign: 0
US casualties from Bush invasion of Iraq: 4,500 dead, 33,000 wounded

3. Cost of Clinton bombing campaign: No idea but I am thinking less than a trillion.
Cost of Bush invasion of Iraq: $1,000,000,000,000 +++

Questions about the differences between the two? Asshat.

Compelling, Tim, but LLIdiot will respond with the excessive ellipses counterattack..........

.......can.......anyone....... ........withstand ........................that?

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by WTF

This from your own link!


The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.
Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.
All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.

+1,000

Good post WTF. JD, Bush was wrong. You have nothing but old weapons from the 1980's.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by timpage

Your affliction is stupidity. You and your retarded brother, the admiral, aren't very good at analogies.

Let's review:

1. Clinton bombing campaign: 4 days
Bush invasion of Iraq: 8 years, 9 months

2. US casualties from Clinton bombing campaign: 0
US casualties from Bush invasion of Iraq: 4,500 dead, 33,000 wounded

3. Cost of Clinton bombing campaign: No idea but I am thinking less than a trillion.
Cost of Bush invasion of Iraq: $1,000,000,000,000 +++

Questions about the differences between the two? Asshat.

Lets go further;

1. Why did both Clinton and Bush take military action against Hussein: WMDs

2. Whose campaign would have located and ultimately rid the world of those WMDs: Not Clinton's.

3. The invasion was the least of the costs of Iraq. It was the peace that was expensive.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by timpage

Your affliction is stupidity.

Spoken like a faithful liberal sop. You actually believe you are smarter.

Like YOUR MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Bush was wrong. You have nothing but old weapons from the 1980's.

You have 20-20 hindsight, just like your buddy BigTits.

The following is not an Anti-Bush opinion posted in a blog ...

Then President Clinton ... December 16, 1998:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

"Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html

IT IS THE ONE YOU WANT IN THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2017.

[Guest051115]

The OP is the gift that keeps on giving - LOL. You are pure comedy gold Barleycawn please carry on. LOL

[WTF]

Originally Posted by boardman

So Bush lied to us about there being WMDs in Iraq and then lied to us again when they found them?

Some would say Bush did not lie about yellow cake and Iraq reconstituting their weapons program, he was just mistaken. An unknown lie if you will,

JD's article just proves that to be the case. Well it proves that Bush was lying. It does not prove that he knew he was lying or not. One would hope he did not know he was lying.

Do you Bush apologist understand what active weapons of mass destruction program means.

I know LexusLiar, the Johnny Cochran of eccie does but he is lying and distorting again.

Originally Posted by WTF

This from your own link!


The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.
Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.
All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The following is not an Anti-Bush opinion posted in a blog ...

Then President Clinton ... December 16, 1998:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

"Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html

IT IS THE ONE YOU WANT IN THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2017.

So both Clinton and Bush were wrong about Saddam WMD program. Which one invaded and will winding up having taxpayers spending up to 4 TRILLION dollars and countless lives lost? Clinton or Bush ?

[JD Barleycorn]

I was sitting here thinking and it occurred to me, Obama knew (or should have) the WMDs that were found in Iraq. He has been in charge (or so we've been told) for the last six years. His people knew about this stuff and said nothing. Wonder why that is? Why would Obama cover up the knowledge of WMDs in Iraq?

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by timpage

Your affliction is stupidity. You and your retarded brother, the admiral, aren't very good at analogies.

Let's review:

1. Clinton bombing campaign: 4 days
Bush invasion of Iraq: 8 years, 9 months

2. US casualties from Clinton bombing campaign: 0
US casualties from Bush invasion of Iraq: 4,500 dead, 33,000 wounded

3. Cost of Clinton bombing campaign: No idea but I am thinking less than a trillion.
Cost of Bush invasion of Iraq: $1,000,000,000,000 +++

Questions about the differences between the two? Asshat.

All that proves is that Clinton was a pussy.. Even Hillary has more balls than him.

Totally irrelevant.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

[SIZE=3]So both Clinton and Bush were wrong about Saddam WMD program.

No.

You make things so simple. Not surprising.

Please stay on the bench.