Judging history from the comfy armchair of today is fun isn't it !

Let's do Vietnam next !

Well, let's not be too selective. We can either talk about history or we can't. Depending on the issue, one person's "old news" is another person's eternal talking point. 😉

If you can prove the Bush Team KNEW there were no WMD at the OUTSET of the invasion, then and only then have you proven that Bush lied. Until then, we can theorize till the end of time....

OK, for a minute let us assume that Bush wasn't sure. He invaded a sovereign nation based on info he wasn't sure about.

If his advisers lied to him, why were none of the fired and prosecuted? Why didn't Bush admit he was lied to? He just stayed the course. Either way, he started an illegal war.

Military operations in Iraq were a matter of policy. The neoconservatives in the Bush Administration were intent on starting a course of action they had planned on for twenty years.

How it actually got started didn't matter and still doesn't matter.

______________________________________________________________________

I doubt the almost 3,000 people murdered by the Islamic Extremist Terrorists on 9/11 would agree with you.

If you can prove the Bush Team KNEW there were no WMD at the OUTSET of the invasion, then and only then have you proven that Bush lied. Until then, we can theorize till the end of time....

OK, for a minute let us assume that Bush wasn't sure. He invaded a sovereign nation based on info he wasn't sure about.

If his advisers lied to him, why were none of the fired and prosecuted? Why didn't Bush admit he was lied to? He just stayed the course. Either way, he started an illegal war.

Military operations in Iraq were a matter of policy. The neoconservatives in the Bush Administration were intent on starting a course of action they had planned on for twenty years.

How it actually got started didn't matter and still doesn't matter.

______________________________________________________________________

I doubt the almost 3,000 people murdered by the Islamic Extremist Terrorists on 9/11 would agree with you.

Which had nothing to do with invading Iraq as there is not proof Iraq supported Al Qaeda.

[Edited on 6/2/2015 by Bill_Graham]

If you can prove the Bush Team KNEW there were no WMD at the OUTSET of the invasion, then and only then have you proven that Bush lied. Until then, we can theorize till the end of time....

OK, for a minute let us assume that Bush wasn't sure. He invaded a sovereign nation based on info he wasn't sure about.

If his advisers lied to him, why were none of the fired and prosecuted? Why didn't Bush admit he was lied to? He just stayed the course. Either way, he started an illegal war.

Military operations in Iraq were a matter of policy. The neoconservatives in the Bush Administration were intent on starting a course of action they had planned on for twenty years.

How it actually got started didn't matter and still doesn't matter.

______________________________________________________________________

I doubt the almost 3,000 people murdered by the Islamic Extremist Terrorists on 9/11 would agree with you.

Then Bush invaded the wrong country. He should have invaded Saudi Arabia. But they were his buddies, so no, can't do that.

The Bush family is also friends with the bin laden family, so he gave OSAMA a pass on attacking OUR country and killing OUR citizens.

I, for one, don't buy this one.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bush-bin_Laden_family_links

The Bush family is also friends with the bin laden family, so he gave OSAMA a pass on attacking OUR country and killing OUR citizens.

I, for one, don't buy this one.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bush-bin_Laden_family_links/blockquote >Did you forget when after the 911 attacks, all flights were suspended, and bush had bin laden family members flown out of the U.S. back to saudi arabia.? I don't trust saudi arabia. the are NOT our friends.

Yes, I remember the story. Seemed hard to believe then, and I still find it hard to believe...

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_family_flight

 

The Bush family is also friends with the bin laden family, so he gave OSAMA a pass on attacking OUR country and killing OUR citizens.

I, for one, don't buy this one.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bush-bin_Laden_family_links/blockquote >Did you forget when after the 911 attacks, all flights were suspended, and bush had bin laden family members flown out of the U.S. back to saudi arabia.? I don't trust saudi arabia. they are NOT our friends.

[Edited on 6/2/2015 by pops42]

We kiss the Saudi's asses because they are the largest oil producer in the Middle East, weild a lot of power in OPEC, and can help control oil prices. They also supply 13% of our oil so they have us by the short hairs.

 

The Bush family is also friends with the bin laden family, so he gave OSAMA a pass on attacking OUR country and killing OUR citizens.

I, for one, don't buy this one.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bush-bin_Laden_family_links/blockquote >Did you forget when after the 911 attacks, all flights were suspended, and bush had bin laden family members flown out of the U.S. back to saudi arabia.? I don't trust saudi arabia. they are NOT our friends.

[Edited on 6/2/2015 by pops42]

We kiss the Saudi's asses because they are the largest oil producer in the Middle East, weild a lot of power in OPEC, and can help control oil prices. They also supply 13% of our oil so they have us by the short hairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

We would not need to buy Saudi oil if Obama stopped blocking U.S. energy independence.

[Edited on 6/3/2015 by Muleman1994]

 

If you can prove the Bush Team KNEW there were no WMD at the OUTSET of the invasion, then and only then have you proven that Bush lied. Until then, we can theorize till the end of time....

LOL!!! Now I get it. I can't believe it took me this long to get it......you are the Bill O'Reilly of the ABB Whipping Post forum......you play up the far-right angle, not because you actually believe it, but because you get great enjoyment out of pissing off liberals. In all honesty, I love Bill O'Reilly for this exact reason. I find him hilarious and extremely talented and entertaining. Kudos on your job well done doing the same here in the forum. It's the only logical explanation I can come up with after reading such an asinine comment.

If you can prove the Bush Team KNEW there were no WMD at the OUTSET of the invasion, then and only then have you proven that Bush lied. Until then, we can theorize till the end of time....

LOL!!! Now I get it. I can't believe it took me this long to get it......you are the Bill O'Reilly of the ABB Whipping Post forum......you play up the far-right angle, not because you actually believe it, but because you get great enjoyment out of pissing off liberals. In all honesty, I love Bill O'Reilly for this exact reason. I find him hilarious and extremely talented and entertaining. Kudos on your job well done doing the same here in the forum. It's the only logical explanation I can come up with after reading such an asinine comment.

_______________________________________________________________________

Do the fact just confuse you?

If you can prove the Bush Team KNEW there were no WMD at the OUTSET of the invasion, then and only then have you proven that Bush lied. Until then, we can theorize till the end of time....

LOL!!! Now I get it. I can't believe it took me this long to get it......you are the Bill O'Reilly of the ABB Whipping Post forum......you play up the far-right angle, not because you actually believe it, but because you get great enjoyment out of pissing off liberals. In all honesty, I love Bill O'Reilly for this exact reason. I find him hilarious and extremely talented and entertaining. Kudos on your job well done doing the same here in the forum. It's the only logical explanation I can come up with after reading such an asinine comment.

_______________________________________________________________________

Do the fact just confuse you?

No more than the English language, grammar, research, telling the truth, personality, courtesy, respect, reading and thought confuse or are foreign to you.

But you are good for a laugh every now and then. 😛

If you can prove the Bush Team KNEW there were no WMD at the OUTSET of the invasion, then and only then have you proven that Bush lied. Until then, we can theorize till the end of time....

LOL!!! Now I get it. I can't believe it took me this long to get it......you are the Bill O'Reilly of the ABB Whipping Post forum......you play up the far-right angle, not because you actually believe it, but because you get great enjoyment out of pissing off liberals. In all honesty, I love Bill O'Reilly for this exact reason. I find him hilarious and extremely talented and entertaining. Kudos on your job well done doing the same here in the forum. It's the only logical explanation I can come up with after reading such an asinine comment.

In the meantime, the logic of the "asinine" comment conveniently escapes you. There's only one possible scenario that would make Bush a liar in this matter. Prove that he knew there were no WMD's, yet continued to sell the invasion anyway. If someone can do that I'll agree he lied us into war.

If you can prove the Bush Team KNEW there were no WMD at the OUTSET of the invasion, then and only then have you proven that Bush lied. Until then, we can theorize till the end of time....

LOL!!! Now I get it. I can't believe it took me this long to get it......you are the Bill O'Reilly of the ABB Whipping Post forum......you play up the far-right angle, not because you actually believe it, but because you get great enjoyment out of pissing off liberals. In all honesty, I love Bill O'Reilly for this exact reason. I find him hilarious and extremely talented and entertaining. Kudos on your job well done doing the same here in the forum. It's the only logical explanation I can come up with after reading such an asinine comment.

In the meantime, the logic of the "asinine" comment conveniently escapes you. There's only one possible scenario that would make Bush a liar in this matter. Prove that he knew there were no WMD's, yet continued to sell the invasion anyway. If someone can do that I'll agree he lied us into war.

The type of proof you would require seems to be a confession by Bush in this forum. But the fact remains that nobody is required to prove anything to you.

We would not need to buy Saudi oil if Obama stopped blocking U.S. energy independence.

I guess you didn't know that we import less than half of the amount of oil we did 10 years ago. We are more energy independent today than we have been at any time since you were in diapers. Maybe if we were this energy independent during the Bush years we wouldn't of had to invade Iraq. Damn Obama!

It wasn't the logic that's asinine. The length you are willing to go defend and exonerate Bush (as I would too since he was a mouthpiece only IMO), while denying the same effort to those you don't agree with, is what's asinine.

See to Alloak this issue is black and white. Bush has been falsely accused of lying about WMD to trick everyone in supporting the invasion. His argument is there is no proof that Bush lied, which is true, and they did find WMD's when they invaded which is also true.

So in his mind he is right and we all are wrong. What he will not debate is whether the Bush Administration purposely suppressed Intelligence which showed that Iraq had neither a viable WMD development and manufacturing programs and a stockpile of viable offensive WMD at the time of invasion.

In both cases we found out after the fact that the Intelligence reports showed that there was no tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda, there was no viable WMD production capabilities, and all the WMD found after the invasion were old and useless.

Did Bush Lie? We will never be able to prove this but there sure is evidence his administration ignored Intelligence and cherry picked questionable and disputed Intelligence which showed everything they claimed to sell the invasion was false.

Over 4,000 Americans died and over 30,000 wounded for this:

SECTION ONE: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

Article 1:

The Republic of Iraq is a single, independent federal state with full sovereignty. Its system of government is republican, representative, Parliamentary and democratic. This Constitution is the guarantor of its unity.

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

Funny how things work out.

How it all started matters not one whit.

Over 4,000 Americans died and over 30,000 wounded for this:

SECTION ONE: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

Article 1:

The Republic of Iraq is a single, independent federal state with full sovereignty. Its system of government is republican, representative, Parliamentary and democratic. This Constitution is the guarantor of its unity.

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

Funny how things work out.

How it all started matters not one whit.

To the dead,wounded, and their families I agree how it started is moot but as a nation we need to learn from this train wreck we created so as not repeat our mistakes in the future. Sadly our leaders never seem to learn from past mistakes.

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' George Santayana

[Edited on 6/3/2015 by Bill_Graham]

See to Alloak this issue is black and white. Bush has been falsely accused of lying about WMD to trick everyone in supporting the invasion. His argument is there is no proof that Bush lied, which is true, and they did find WMD's when they invaded which is also true.

So in his mind he is right and we all are wrong. What he will not debate is whether the Bush Administration purposely suppressed Intelligence which showed that Iraq had neither a viable WMD development and manufacturing programs and a stockpile of viable offensive WMD at the time of invasion.

In both cases we found out after the fact that the Intelligence reports showed that there was no tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda, there was no viable WMD production capabilities, and all the WMD found after the invasion were old and useless.

Did Bush Lie? We will never be able to prove this but there sure is evidence his administration ignored Intelligence and cherry picked questionable and disputed Intelligence which showed everything they claimed to sell the invasion was false.

1. Thanks for your fair assessment.

2. Anyone who continues to claim that Bush "lied us into a war" is blatantly wrong and more importantly has provided no evidence to support this claim.

3. "Old and useless" when? When they were found, or in 2001?

4. More speculation without proof. I could say it looks like there's evidence the Clintons are guilty of racketeering, but would hesitate to do so without definite proof. Rightly, you all would insist on it so let's be fair.

I think it's also important to remember that Bush didn't have the same benefit of hindsight that his opponents enjoy today when discussing the whole matter of the Iraq War. For instance, had Saddam started exterminating people once again, Bush would have been blamed for not doing anything to prevent it.

Prior to the invasion, I don't remember anybody insisting that there are positively no WMD in Iraq. Nobody. They love saying it now, but where were they in 2001?

See to Alloak this issue is black and white. Bush has been falsely accused of lying about WMD to trick everyone in supporting the invasion. His argument is there is no proof that Bush lied, which is true, and they did find WMD's when they invaded which is also true.

So in his mind he is right and we all are wrong. What he will not debate is whether the Bush Administration purposely suppressed Intelligence which showed that Iraq had neither a viable WMD development and manufacturing programs and a stockpile of viable offensive WMD at the time of invasion.

In both cases we found out after the fact that the Intelligence reports showed that there was no tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda, there was no viable WMD production capabilities, and all the WMD found after the invasion were old and useless.

Did Bush Lie? We will never be able to prove this but there sure is evidence his administration ignored Intelligence and cherry picked questionable and disputed Intelligence which showed everything they claimed to sell the invasion was false.

1. Thanks for your fair assessment.

2. Anyone who continues to claim that Bush "lied us into a war" is blatantly wrong and more importantly has provided no evidence to support this claim.

3. "Old and useless" when? When they were found, or in 2001?

4. More speculation without proof. I could say it looks like there's evidence the Clintons are guilty of racketeering, but would hesitate to do so without definite proof. Rightly, you all would insist on it so let's be fair.

I think it's also important to remember that Bush didn't have the same benefit of hindsight that his opponents enjoy today when discussing the whole matter of the Iraq War. For instance, had Saddam started exterminating people once again, Bush would have been blamed for not doing anything to prevent it.

Prior to the invasion, I don't remember anybody insisting that there are positively no WMD in Iraq. Nobody. They love saying it now, but where were they in 2001?

Come on Alloak you are smart enough to know how intelligence works. It rarely is 100% positive. But there is evidence that the Bush Administration did have the reliable intelligence that showed, what I stated, that Saddam did not have an active WMD program or stockpiles of viable WMD's.

The intelligence also showed that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

There are also reports that the WMD's found during the invasion were old and not viable and were actually dangerous to those exposed to them because of their poor condition.

Based on what we now know it seems the Bush Administration was determined to find an excuse to attack Iraq despite the Intelligence contradicting what they stated as the reason for invasion.

I could Google plenty of proof for you to support my stance but you know how to do this as well if you wanted.

You seem intent on ignoring the evidence in your support of Bush's decision, even though you disagreed with it, so there really is no reason for us to debate further.

[Edited on 6/3/2015 by Bill_Graham]

See to Alloak this issue is black and white. Bush has been falsely accused of lying about WMD to trick everyone in supporting the invasion. His argument is there is no proof that Bush lied, which is true, and they did find WMD's when they invaded which is also true.

So in his mind he is right and we all are wrong. What he will not debate is whether the Bush Administration purposely suppressed Intelligence which showed that Iraq had neither a viable WMD development and manufacturing programs and a stockpile of viable offensive WMD at the time of invasion.

In both cases we found out after the fact that the Intelligence reports showed that there was no tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda, there was no viable WMD production capabilities, and all the WMD found after the invasion were old and useless.

Did Bush Lie? We will never be able to prove this but there sure is evidence his administration ignored Intelligence and cherry picked questionable and disputed Intelligence which showed everything they claimed to sell the invasion was false.

1. Thanks for your fair assessment.

2. Anyone who continues to claim that Bush "lied us into a war" is blatantly wrong and more importantly has provided no evidence to support this claim.

3. "Old and useless" when? When they were found, or in 2001?

4. More speculation without proof. I could say it looks like there's evidence the Clintons are guilty of racketeering, but would hesitate to do so without definite proof. Rightly, you all would insist on it so let's be fair.

I think it's also important to remember that Bush didn't have the same benefit of hindsight that his opponents enjoy today when discussing the whole matter of the Iraq War. For instance, had Saddam started exterminating people once again, Bush would have been blamed for not doing anything to prevent it.

Prior to the invasion, I don't remember anybody insisting that there are positively no WMD in Iraq. Nobody. They love saying it now, but where were they in 2001?

Come on Alloak you are smart enough to know how intelligence works. It rarely is 100% positive. But there is evidence that the Bush Administration did have the reliable intelligence that showed, what I stated, that Saddam did not have an active WMD program or stockpiles of viable WMD's.

The intelligence also showed that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

There are also reports that the WMD's found during the invasion were old and not viable and were actually dangerous to those exposed to them because of their poor condition.

Based on what we now know it seems the Bush Administration was determined to find an excuse to attack Iraq despite the Intelligence contradicting what they stated as the reason for invasion.

I could Google plenty of proof for you to support my stance but you know how to do this as well if you wanted.

You seem intent on ignoring the evidence in your support of Bush's decision, even though you disagreed with it, so there really is no reason for us to debate further.

[Edited on 6/3/2015 by Bill_Graham]

______________________________________________________________________

1.) “But there is evidence that the Bush Administration did have the reliable intelligence that showed, what I stated, that Saddam did not have an active WMD program or stockpiles of viable WMD's.”

What evidence?

2.) “The intelligence also showed that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.”

The CIA (who opened their Bin-Laden desk in 1995) testified that in fact Saddam Hussein was harboring Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq and was providing material support to Al Qaeda.

3.) “There are also reports that the WMD's found during the invasion were old and not viable and were actually dangerous to those exposed to them because of their poor condition.

Wrong and the chemical weapons Saddam Hussein sent to Syria and the two captured Iraqi mobile chemical weapon trailers prove it.

4.) “Based on what we now know it seems the Bush Administration was determined to find an excuse to attack Iraq despite the Intelligence contradicting what they stated as the reason for invasion”

Pure liberal spin with no basis in fact.

You have no evidence while proof of the WMD’s and Al Qaeda in Iraq has been proven.

Interesting that you do not mention that 9/11 was facilitated by The Clinton administration’s repeated failure to act when the evidence was right in front of them.

See to Alloak this issue is black and white. Bush has been falsely accused of lying about WMD to trick everyone in supporting the invasion. His argument is there is no proof that Bush lied, which is true, and they did find WMD's when they invaded which is also true.

So in his mind he is right and we all are wrong. What he will not debate is whether the Bush Administration purposely suppressed Intelligence which showed that Iraq had neither a viable WMD development and manufacturing programs and a stockpile of viable offensive WMD at the time of invasion.

In both cases we found out after the fact that the Intelligence reports showed that there was no tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda, there was no viable WMD production capabilities, and all the WMD found after the invasion were old and useless.

Did Bush Lie? We will never be able to prove this but there sure is evidence his administration ignored Intelligence and cherry picked questionable and disputed Intelligence which showed everything they claimed to sell the invasion was false.

1. Thanks for your fair assessment.

2. Anyone who continues to claim that Bush "lied us into a war" is blatantly wrong and more importantly has provided no evidence to support this claim.

3. "Old and useless" when? When they were found, or in 2001?

4. More speculation without proof. I could say it looks like there's evidence the Clintons are guilty of racketeering, but would hesitate to do so without definite proof. Rightly, you all would insist on it so let's be fair.

I think it's also important to remember that Bush didn't have the same benefit of hindsight that his opponents enjoy today when discussing the whole matter of the Iraq War. For instance, had Saddam started exterminating people once again, Bush would have been blamed for not doing anything to prevent it.

Prior to the invasion, I don't remember anybody insisting that there are positively no WMD in Iraq. Nobody. They love saying it now, but where were they in 2001?

Come on Alloak you are smart enough to know how intelligence works. It rarely is 100% positive. But there is evidence that the Bush Administration did have the reliable intelligence that showed, what I stated, that Saddam did not have an active WMD program or stockpiles of viable WMD's.

The intelligence also showed that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

There are also reports that the WMD's found during the invasion were old and not viable and were actually dangerous to those exposed to them because of their poor condition.

Based on what we now know it seems the Bush Administration was determined to find an excuse to attack Iraq despite the Intelligence contradicting what they stated as the reason for invasion.

I could Google plenty of proof for you to support my stance but you know how to do this as well if you wanted.

You seem intent on ignoring the evidence in your support of Bush's decision, even though you disagreed with it, so there really is no reason for us to debate further.

[Edited on 6/3/2015 by Bill_Graham]

______________________________________________________________________

1.) “But there is evidence that the Bush Administration did have the reliable intelligence that showed, what I stated, that Saddam did not have an active WMD program or stockpiles of viable WMD's.”

What evidence?

2.) “The intelligence also showed that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.”

The CIA (who opened their Bin-Laden desk in 1995) testified that in fact Saddam Hussein was harboring Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq and was providing material support to Al Qaeda.

3.) “There are also reports that the WMD's found during the invasion were old and not viable and were actually dangerous to those exposed to them because of their poor condition.

Wrong and the chemical weapons Saddam Hussein sent to Syria and the two captured Iraqi mobile chemical weapon trailers prove it.

4.) “Based on what we now know it seems the Bush Administration was determined to find an excuse to attack Iraq despite the Intelligence contradicting what they stated as the reason for invasion”

Pure liberal spin with no basis in fact.

You have no evidence while proof of the WMD’s and Al Qaeda in Iraq has been proven.

Interesting that you do not mention that 9/11 was facilitated by The Clinton administration’s repeated failure to act when the evidence was right in front of them.

Got any proof in the form of links? No? Research is so hard.

See to Alloak this issue is black and white. Bush has been falsely accused of lying about WMD to trick everyone in supporting the invasion. His argument is there is no proof that Bush lied, which is true, and they did find WMD's when they invaded which is also true.

So in his mind he is right and we all are wrong. What he will not debate is whether the Bush Administration purposely suppressed Intelligence which showed that Iraq had neither a viable WMD development and manufacturing programs and a stockpile of viable offensive WMD at the time of invasion.

In both cases we found out after the fact that the Intelligence reports showed that there was no tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda, there was no viable WMD production capabilities, and all the WMD found after the invasion were old and useless.

Did Bush Lie? We will never be able to prove this but there sure is evidence his administration ignored Intelligence and cherry picked questionable and disputed Intelligence which showed everything they claimed to sell the invasion was false.

1. Thanks for your fair assessment.

2. Anyone who continues to claim that Bush "lied us into a war" is blatantly wrong and more importantly has provided no evidence to support this claim.

3. "Old and useless" when? When they were found, or in 2001?

4. More speculation without proof. I could say it looks like there's evidence the Clintons are guilty of racketeering, but would hesitate to do so without definite proof. Rightly, you all would insist on it so let's be fair.

I think it's also important to remember that Bush didn't have the same benefit of hindsight that his opponents enjoy today when discussing the whole matter of the Iraq War. For instance, had Saddam started exterminating people once again, Bush would have been blamed for not doing anything to prevent it.

Prior to the invasion, I don't remember anybody insisting that there are positively no WMD in Iraq. Nobody. They love saying it now, but where were they in 2001?

Come on Alloak you are smart enough to know how intelligence works. It rarely is 100% positive. But there is evidence that the Bush Administration did have the reliable intelligence that showed, what I stated, that Saddam did not have an active WMD program or stockpiles of viable WMD's.

The intelligence also showed that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

There are also reports that the WMD's found during the invasion were old and not viable and were actually dangerous to those exposed to them because of their poor condition.

Based on what we now know it seems the Bush Administration was determined to find an excuse to attack Iraq despite the Intelligence contradicting what they stated as the reason for invasion.

I could Google plenty of proof for you to support my stance but you know how to do this as well if you wanted.

You seem intent on ignoring the evidence in your support of Bush's decision, even though you disagreed with it, so there really is no reason for us to debate further.

[Edited on 6/3/2015 by Bill_Graham]

______________________________________________________________________

1.) “But there is evidence that the Bush Administration did have the reliable intelligence that showed, what I stated, that Saddam did not have an active WMD program or stockpiles of viable WMD's.”

What evidence?

2.) “The intelligence also showed that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.”

The CIA (who opened their Bin-Laden desk in 1995) testified that in fact Saddam Hussein was harboring Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq and was providing material support to Al Qaeda.

3.) “There are also reports that the WMD's found during the invasion were old and not viable and were actually dangerous to those exposed to them because of their poor condition.

Wrong and the chemical weapons Saddam Hussein sent to Syria and the two captured Iraqi mobile chemical weapon trailers prove it.

4.) “Based on what we now know it seems the Bush Administration was determined to find an excuse to attack Iraq despite the Intelligence contradicting what they stated as the reason for invasion”

Pure liberal spin with no basis in fact.

You have no evidence while proof of the WMD’s and Al Qaeda in Iraq has been proven.

Interesting that you do not mention that 9/11 was facilitated by The Clinton administration’s repeated failure to act when the evidence was right in front of them.

Got any proof in the form of links? No? Research is so hard.

______-____________________________________________________________

Long proven with facts.
Try to stay up son.

Or, prove me wrong.

See to Alloak this issue is black and white. Bush has been falsely accused of lying about WMD to trick everyone in supporting the invasion. His argument is there is no proof that Bush lied, which is true, and they did find WMD's when they invaded which is also true.

So in his mind he is right and we all are wrong. What he will not debate is whether the Bush Administration purposely suppressed Intelligence which showed that Iraq had neither a viable WMD development and manufacturing programs and a stockpile of viable offensive WMD at the time of invasion.

In both cases we found out after the fact that the Intelligence reports showed that there was no tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda, there was no viable WMD production capabilities, and all the WMD found after the invasion were old and useless.

Did Bush Lie? We will never be able to prove this but there sure is evidence his administration ignored Intelligence and cherry picked questionable and disputed Intelligence which showed everything they claimed to sell the invasion was false.

1. Thanks for your fair assessment.

2. Anyone who continues to claim that Bush "lied us into a war" is blatantly wrong and more importantly has provided no evidence to support this claim.

3. "Old and useless" when? When they were found, or in 2001?

4. More speculation without proof. I could say it looks like there's evidence the Clintons are guilty of racketeering, but would hesitate to do so without definite proof. Rightly, you all would insist on it so let's be fair.

I think it's also important to remember that Bush didn't have the same benefit of hindsight that his opponents enjoy today when discussing the whole matter of the Iraq War. For instance, had Saddam started exterminating people once again, Bush would have been blamed for not doing anything to prevent it.

Prior to the invasion, I don't remember anybody insisting that there are positively no WMD in Iraq. Nobody. They love saying it now, but where were they in 2001?

Come on Alloak you are smart enough to know how intelligence works. It rarely is 100% positive. But there is evidence that the Bush Administration did have the reliable intelligence that showed, what I stated, that Saddam did not have an active WMD program or stockpiles of viable WMD's.

The intelligence also showed that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

There are also reports that the WMD's found during the invasion were old and not viable and were actually dangerous to those exposed to them because of their poor condition.

Based on what we now know it seems the Bush Administration was determined to find an excuse to attack Iraq despite the Intelligence contradicting what they stated as the reason for invasion.

I could Google plenty of proof for you to support my stance but you know how to do this as well if you wanted.

You seem intent on ignoring the evidence in your support of Bush's decision, even though you disagreed with it, so there really is no reason for us to debate further.

[Edited on 6/3/2015 by Bill_Graham]

______________________________________________________________________

1.) “But there is evidence that the Bush Administration did have the reliable intelligence that showed, what I stated, that Saddam did not have an active WMD program or stockpiles of viable WMD's.”

What evidence?

2.) “The intelligence also showed that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.”

The CIA (who opened their Bin-Laden desk in 1995) testified that in fact Saddam Hussein was harboring Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq and was providing material support to Al Qaeda.

3.) “There are also reports that the WMD's found during the invasion were old and not viable and were actually dangerous to those exposed to them because of their poor condition.

Wrong and the chemical weapons Saddam Hussein sent to Syria and the two captured Iraqi mobile chemical weapon trailers prove it.

4.) “Based on what we now know it seems the Bush Administration was determined to find an excuse to attack Iraq despite the Intelligence contradicting what they stated as the reason for invasion”

Pure liberal spin with no basis in fact.

You have no evidence while proof of the WMD’s and Al Qaeda in Iraq has been proven.

Interesting that you do not mention that 9/11 was facilitated by The Clinton administration’s repeated failure to act when the evidence was right in front of them.

Got any proof in the form of links? No? Research is so hard.

______-____________________________________________________________

Long proven with facts.
Try to stay up son.

Or, prove me wrong.

No, genius, prove the point that you made. That's how it works. Not that you have ever shown any ability to do your own research.

See to Alloak this issue is black and white. Bush has been falsely accused of lying about WMD to trick everyone in supporting the invasion. His argument is there is no proof that Bush lied, which is true, and they did find WMD's when they invaded which is also true.

So in his mind he is right and we all are wrong. What he will not debate is whether the Bush Administration purposely suppressed Intelligence which showed that Iraq had neither a viable WMD development and manufacturing programs and a stockpile of viable offensive WMD at the time of invasion.

In both cases we found out after the fact that the Intelligence reports showed that there was no tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda, there was no viable WMD production capabilities, and all the WMD found after the invasion were old and useless.

Did Bush Lie? We will never be able to prove this but there sure is evidence his administration ignored Intelligence and cherry picked questionable and disputed Intelligence which showed everything they claimed to sell the invasion was false.

1. Thanks for your fair assessment.

2. Anyone who continues to claim that Bush "lied us into a war" is blatantly wrong and more importantly has provided no evidence to support this claim.

3. "Old and useless" when? When they were found, or in 2001?

4. More speculation without proof. I could say it looks like there's evidence the Clintons are guilty of racketeering, but would hesitate to do so without definite proof. Rightly, you all would insist on it so let's be fair.

I think it's also important to remember that Bush didn't have the same benefit of hindsight that his opponents enjoy today when discussing the whole matter of the Iraq War. For instance, had Saddam started exterminating people once again, Bush would have been blamed for not doing anything to prevent it.

Prior to the invasion, I don't remember anybody insisting that there are positively no WMD in Iraq. Nobody. They love saying it now, but where were they in 2001?

Come on Alloak you are smart enough to know how intelligence works. It rarely is 100% positive. But there is evidence that the Bush Administration did have the reliable intelligence that showed, what I stated, that Saddam did not have an active WMD program or stockpiles of viable WMD's.

The intelligence also showed that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

There are also reports that the WMD's found during the invasion were old and not viable and were actually dangerous to those exposed to them because of their poor condition.

Based on what we now know it seems the Bush Administration was determined to find an excuse to attack Iraq despite the Intelligence contradicting what they stated as the reason for invasion.

I could Google plenty of proof for you to support my stance but you know how to do this as well if you wanted.

You seem intent on ignoring the evidence in your support of Bush's decision, even though you disagreed with it, so there really is no reason for us to debate further.

[Edited on 6/3/2015 by Bill_Graham]

______________________________________________________________________

1.) “But there is evidence that the Bush Administration did have the reliable intelligence that showed, what I stated, that Saddam did not have an active WMD program or stockpiles of viable WMD's.”

What evidence?

2.) “The intelligence also showed that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.”

The CIA (who opened their Bin-Laden desk in 1995) testified that in fact Saddam Hussein was harboring Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq and was providing material support to Al Qaeda.

3.) “There are also reports that the WMD's found during the invasion were old and not viable and were actually dangerous to those exposed to them because of their poor condition.

Wrong and the chemical weapons Saddam Hussein sent to Syria and the two captured Iraqi mobile chemical weapon trailers prove it.

4.) “Based on what we now know it seems the Bush Administration was determined to find an excuse to attack Iraq despite the Intelligence contradicting what they stated as the reason for invasion”

Pure liberal spin with no basis in fact.

You have no evidence while proof of the WMD’s and Al Qaeda in Iraq has been proven.

Interesting that you do not mention that 9/11 was facilitated by The Clinton administration’s repeated failure to act when the evidence was right in front of them.

Got any proof in the form of links? No? Research is so hard.

______-____________________________________________________________

Long proven with facts.
Try to stay up son.

Or, prove me wrong.

No, genius, prove the point that you made. That's how it works. Not that you have ever shown any ability to do your own research.

_____________________________________________________________________

Nice try liar.

My facts have been presented and proven.
Prove me wrong.

See to Alloak this issue is black and white. Bush has been falsely accused of lying about WMD to trick everyone in supporting the invasion. His argument is there is no proof that Bush lied, which is true, and they did find WMD's when they invaded which is also true.

So in his mind he is right and we all are wrong. What he will not debate is whether the Bush Administration purposely suppressed Intelligence which showed that Iraq had neither a viable WMD development and manufacturing programs and a stockpile of viable offensive WMD at the time of invasion.

In both cases we found out after the fact that the Intelligence reports showed that there was no tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda, there was no viable WMD production capabilities, and all the WMD found after the invasion were old and useless.

Did Bush Lie? We will never be able to prove this but there sure is evidence his administration ignored Intelligence and cherry picked questionable and disputed Intelligence which showed everything they claimed to sell the invasion was false.

1. Thanks for your fair assessment.

2. Anyone who continues to claim that Bush "lied us into a war" is blatantly wrong and more importantly has provided no evidence to support this claim.

3. "Old and useless" when? When they were found, or in 2001?

4. More speculation without proof. I could say it looks like there's evidence the Clintons are guilty of racketeering, but would hesitate to do so without definite proof. Rightly, you all would insist on it so let's be fair.

I think it's also important to remember that Bush didn't have the same benefit of hindsight that his opponents enjoy today when discussing the whole matter of the Iraq War. For instance, had Saddam started exterminating people once again, Bush would have been blamed for not doing anything to prevent it.

Prior to the invasion, I don't remember anybody insisting that there are positively no WMD in Iraq. Nobody. They love saying it now, but where were they in 2001?

Come on Alloak you are smart enough to know how intelligence works. It rarely is 100% positive. But there is evidence that the Bush Administration did have the reliable intelligence that showed, what I stated, that Saddam did not have an active WMD program or stockpiles of viable WMD's.

The intelligence also showed that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

There are also reports that the WMD's found during the invasion were old and not viable and were actually dangerous to those exposed to them because of their poor condition.

Based on what we now know it seems the Bush Administration was determined to find an excuse to attack Iraq despite the Intelligence contradicting what they stated as the reason for invasion.

I could Google plenty of proof for you to support my stance but you know how to do this as well if you wanted.

You seem intent on ignoring the evidence in your support of Bush's decision, even though you disagreed with it, so there really is no reason for us to debate further.

[Edited on 6/3/2015 by Bill_Graham]

______________________________________________________________________

1.) “But there is evidence that the Bush Administration did have the reliable intelligence that showed, what I stated, that Saddam did not have an active WMD program or stockpiles of viable WMD's.”

What evidence?

2.) “The intelligence also showed that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.”

The CIA (who opened their Bin-Laden desk in 1995) testified that in fact Saddam Hussein was harboring Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq and was providing material support to Al Qaeda.

3.) “There are also reports that the WMD's found during the invasion were old and not viable and were actually dangerous to those exposed to them because of their poor condition.

Wrong and the chemical weapons Saddam Hussein sent to Syria and the two captured Iraqi mobile chemical weapon trailers prove it.

4.) “Based on what we now know it seems the Bush Administration was determined to find an excuse to attack Iraq despite the Intelligence contradicting what they stated as the reason for invasion”

Pure liberal spin with no basis in fact.

You have no evidence while proof of the WMD’s and Al Qaeda in Iraq has been proven.

Interesting that you do not mention that 9/11 was facilitated by The Clinton administration’s repeated failure to act when the evidence was right in front of them.

Got any proof in the form of links? No? Research is so hard.

______-____________________________________________________________

Long proven with facts.
Try to stay up son.

Or, prove me wrong.

No, genius, prove the point that you made. That's how it works. Not that you have ever shown any ability to do your own research.

_____________________________________________________________________

Nice try liar.

My facts have been presented and proven.
Prove me wrong.

Liar? You are a complete jerk.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/10/yes_bush_lied_about_iraq_why_are_we_still_arguing_about_this/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/15/1336683/-New-York-Times-exposes-another-Bush-WMD-deception#
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/06/wmd-j21.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/

Now attack the sources because you have proven time aand time again that you lack the ability to read, understand and debate.

See to Alloak this issue is black and white. Bush has been falsely accused of lying about WMD to trick everyone in supporting the invasion. His argument is there is no proof that Bush lied, which is true, and they did find WMD's when they invaded which is also true.

So in his mind he is right and we all are wrong. What he will not debate is whether the Bush Administration purposely suppressed Intelligence which showed that Iraq had neither a viable WMD development and manufacturing programs and a stockpile of viable offensive WMD at the time of invasion.

In both cases we found out after the fact that the Intelligence reports showed that there was no tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda, there was no viable WMD production capabilities, and all the WMD found after the invasion were old and useless.

Did Bush Lie? We will never be able to prove this but there sure is evidence his administration ignored Intelligence and cherry picked questionable and disputed Intelligence which showed everything they claimed to sell the invasion was false.

1. Thanks for your fair assessment.

2. Anyone who continues to claim that Bush "lied us into a war" is blatantly wrong and more importantly has provided no evidence to support this claim.

3. "Old and useless" when? When they were found, or in 2001?

4. More speculation without proof. I could say it looks like there's evidence the Clintons are guilty of racketeering, but would hesitate to do so without definite proof. Rightly, you all would insist on it so let's be fair.

I think it's also important to remember that Bush didn't have the same benefit of hindsight that his opponents enjoy today when discussing the whole matter of the Iraq War. For instance, had Saddam started exterminating people once again, Bush would have been blamed for not doing anything to prevent it.

Prior to the invasion, I don't remember anybody insisting that there are positively no WMD in Iraq. Nobody. They love saying it now, but where were they in 2001?

Come on Alloak you are smart enough to know how intelligence works. It rarely is 100% positive. But there is evidence that the Bush Administration did have the reliable intelligence that showed, what I stated, that Saddam did not have an active WMD program or stockpiles of viable WMD's.

The intelligence also showed that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

There are also reports that the WMD's found during the invasion were old and not viable and were actually dangerous to those exposed to them because of their poor condition.

Based on what we now know it seems the Bush Administration was determined to find an excuse to attack Iraq despite the Intelligence contradicting what they stated as the reason for invasion.

I could Google plenty of proof for you to support my stance but you know how to do this as well if you wanted.

You seem intent on ignoring the evidence in your support of Bush's decision, even though you disagreed with it, so there really is no reason for us to debate further.

[Edited on 6/3/2015 by Bill_Graham]

______________________________________________________________________

1.) “But there is evidence that the Bush Administration did have the reliable intelligence that showed, what I stated, that Saddam did not have an active WMD program or stockpiles of viable WMD's.”

What evidence?

2.) “The intelligence also showed that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.”

The CIA (who opened their Bin-Laden desk in 1995) testified that in fact Saddam Hussein was harboring Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq and was providing material support to Al Qaeda.

3.) “There are also reports that the WMD's found during the invasion were old and not viable and were actually dangerous to those exposed to them because of their poor condition.

Wrong and the chemical weapons Saddam Hussein sent to Syria and the two captured Iraqi mobile chemical weapon trailers prove it.

4.) “Based on what we now know it seems the Bush Administration was determined to find an excuse to attack Iraq despite the Intelligence contradicting what they stated as the reason for invasion”

Pure liberal spin with no basis in fact.

You have no evidence while proof of the WMD’s and Al Qaeda in Iraq has been proven.

Interesting that you do not mention that 9/11 was facilitated by The Clinton administration’s repeated failure to act when the evidence was right in front of them.

Got any proof in the form of links? No? Research is so hard.

______-____________________________________________________________

Long proven with facts.
Try to stay up son.

Or, prove me wrong.

No, genius, prove the point that you made. That's how it works. Not that you have ever shown any ability to do your own research.

_____________________________________________________________________

Nice try liar.

My facts have been presented and proven.
Prove me wrong.

Liar? You are a complete jerk.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/10/yes_bush_lied_about_iraq_why_are_we_still_arguing_about_this/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/15/1336683/-New-York-Times-exposes-another-Bush-WMD-deception#
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/06/wmd-j21.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/

Now attack the sources because you have proven time aand time again that you lack the ability to read, understand and debate.

________________________________________________________________________

All left-wing sites prove nothing but it does explain why you are so factually challenged.

My facts have been stated. Prove me wrong.

See to Alloak this issue is black and white. Bush has been falsely accused of lying about WMD to trick everyone in supporting the invasion. His argument is there is no proof that Bush lied, which is true, and they did find WMD's when they invaded which is also true.

So in his mind he is right and we all are wrong. What he will not debate is whether the Bush Administration purposely suppressed Intelligence which showed that Iraq had neither a viable WMD development and manufacturing programs and a stockpile of viable offensive WMD at the time of invasion.

In both cases we found out after the fact that the Intelligence reports showed that there was no tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda, there was no viable WMD production capabilities, and all the WMD found after the invasion were old and useless.

Did Bush Lie? We will never be able to prove this but there sure is evidence his administration ignored Intelligence and cherry picked questionable and disputed Intelligence which showed everything they claimed to sell the invasion was false.

1. Thanks for your fair assessment.

2. Anyone who continues to claim that Bush "lied us into a war" is blatantly wrong and more importantly has provided no evidence to support this claim.

3. "Old and useless" when? When they were found, or in 2001?

4. More speculation without proof. I could say it looks like there's evidence the Clintons are guilty of racketeering, but would hesitate to do so without definite proof. Rightly, you all would insist on it so let's be fair.

I think it's also important to remember that Bush didn't have the same benefit of hindsight that his opponents enjoy today when discussing the whole matter of the Iraq War. For instance, had Saddam started exterminating people once again, Bush would have been blamed for not doing anything to prevent it.

Prior to the invasion, I don't remember anybody insisting that there are positively no WMD in Iraq. Nobody. They love saying it now, but where were they in 2001?

Come on Alloak you are smart enough to know how intelligence works. It rarely is 100% positive. But there is evidence that the Bush Administration did have the reliable intelligence that showed, what I stated, that Saddam did not have an active WMD program or stockpiles of viable WMD's.

The intelligence also showed that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

There are also reports that the WMD's found during the invasion were old and not viable and were actually dangerous to those exposed to them because of their poor condition.

Based on what we now know it seems the Bush Administration was determined to find an excuse to attack Iraq despite the Intelligence contradicting what they stated as the reason for invasion.

I could Google plenty of proof for you to support my stance but you know how to do this as well if you wanted.

You seem intent on ignoring the evidence in your support of Bush's decision, even though you disagreed with it, so there really is no reason for us to debate further.

[Edited on 6/3/2015 by Bill_Graham]

______________________________________________________________________

1.) “But there is evidence that the Bush Administration did have the reliable intelligence that showed, what I stated, that Saddam did not have an active WMD program or stockpiles of viable WMD's.”

What evidence?

2.) “The intelligence also showed that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.”

The CIA (who opened their Bin-Laden desk in 1995) testified that in fact Saddam Hussein was harboring Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq and was providing material support to Al Qaeda.

3.) “There are also reports that the WMD's found during the invasion were old and not viable and were actually dangerous to those exposed to them because of their poor condition.

Wrong and the chemical weapons Saddam Hussein sent to Syria and the two captured Iraqi mobile chemical weapon trailers prove it.

4.) “Based on what we now know it seems the Bush Administration was determined to find an excuse to attack Iraq despite the Intelligence contradicting what they stated as the reason for invasion”

Pure liberal spin with no basis in fact.

You have no evidence while proof of the WMD’s and Al Qaeda in Iraq has been proven.

Interesting that you do not mention that 9/11 was facilitated by The Clinton administration’s repeated failure to act when the evidence was right in front of them.

Got any proof in the form of links? No? Research is so hard.

______-____________________________________________________________

Long proven with facts.
Try to stay up son.

Or, prove me wrong.

No, genius, prove the point that you made. That's how it works. Not that you have ever shown any ability to do your own research.

_____________________________________________________________________

Nice try liar.

My facts have been presented and proven.
Prove me wrong.

Liar? You are a complete jerk.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/10/yes_bush_lied_about_iraq_why_are_we_still_arguing_about_this/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/15/1336683/-New-York-Times-exposes-another-Bush-WMD-deception#
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/06/wmd-j21.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/

Now attack the sources because you have proven time aand time again that you lack the ability to read, understand and debate.

________________________________________________________________________

All left-wing sites prove nothing but it does explain why you are so factually challenged.

My facts have been stated. Prove me wrong.

You have provided nothing. I can't help it if you aare too lazy to read and debate. 😛

Oil.