Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   If the Bush administration had known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it probably wouldn't have decided to invade...um, oops   (cnn.com) divider line 91
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

3627 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Feb 2011 at 5:12 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-02-20 02:14:44 PM  
chandrakantha.com
 
2011-02-20 02:22:16 PM  
If he wanted to find the WMDs then he should have searched the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
 
2011-02-20 02:29:27 PM  
"My goodness, every year the Congress was stuffing $10 billion down the Pentagon's throat that we didn't want," Rumsfeld said. "There's no question that there's money there."

=|
 
2011-02-20 02:39:50 PM  
Rumsfeld is a filthy, heinous, horrible sack of lying shiat.

What a duplicitous scumbag.
 
2011-02-20 03:01:35 PM  
Rumsfield then added,"But when you think about it, we didn't really need that trillion dollars or those thousands of dead Americans."
 
2011-02-20 04:11:46 PM  
Bull crap. Chimpy McFlightsuit wanted to finish what daddy started and get revenge for his buddies in Kuwait.
 
2011-02-20 04:11:52 PM  
No, the Bush Administration was going to invade Iraq, WMDs or not. The WMDs story was cover for their hidden agenda.

Thanks for all the dead and wounded Americans, Allies, and Iraqis, George W. Bush!
 
2011-02-20 04:19:20 PM  
Why is Donald Rumsfeld all over the place right now? He's on TV, he wrote a book, etc etc.

At least McNamara waited thirty years before he tried to rehabilitate his image.
 
2011-02-20 04:23:01 PM  
Awkward.
 
2011-02-20 04:23:39 PM  
bullshiat. they were planning the invasion back in the mid nineties. and as soon as bush took power, it got the green light. hell, rummy talked about attacking iraq on 9/11, even though they knew it was bin laden.

i know none of these traitors will ever be prosecuted. and as an atheist, i don't believe in hell. the only thing that keeps me going is knowing that history will eventually relegate bush and his cronies to the "bad" bin, along with harding, mussolini, franco, nero, and any number of feckless and evil leaders.
 
2011-02-20 04:30:04 PM  
WMDs had absolutely nothing to do with why Iraq was invaded. WMDs were the story that was used to sell the invasion the the American people, but it was not the reason.

The neocons in the Bush administration had been lobbying for an invasion of Iraq since the first Bush administration. It was part of their grand vision: Invade Iraq and topple Saddam, and a secular, Isreal-friendly, Jeffersonian democracy would magically spring up. This would provide a staging ground for invasions of nearby countries like Iran or Syria, who would then fall and other friendly democracies would spring up. Democracies who would be amenable to American economic interests (Oil) and not threaten Isreal. This is what they actually believed would happen, the poor dopes. They actually thought they could bomb their way to friendship.

Anyway, the people in the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq from the very first day. It was only after 9/11 that they could use a phony WMD story to get the political ability to actually do.

The WMD story was ALWAYS bogus.
 
2011-02-20 04:51:30 PM  
The only thing entertaining about these threads is seeing who, after all these years of being shown to be full of shiat, still white knights for these assholes.
 
2011-02-20 05:12:57 PM  
The democrats sure flipped easily on the issue.
 
2011-02-20 05:14:12 PM  
"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating Americas response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddams existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraqs enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administrations policy towards Iraq, I dont think there can be any question about Saddams conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
 
2011-02-20 05:14:45 PM  
Oh, if ONLY the Democrats hadn't been so obstructive! We wouldn't have been forced to concoct all that evidence to convince them, and then we would have been able to look at the real evidence instead of all the fake evidence the Democrats made us gin up! Damned Democrats! Vote Republican!
 
2011-02-20 05:18:26 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Oh, if ONLY the Democrats hadn't been so obstructive! We wouldn't have been forced to concoct all that evidence to convince them, and then we would have been able to look at the real evidence instead of all the fake evidence the Democrats made us gin up! Damned Democrats! Vote Republican!


The Democrats weren't selling it, but they bought in. And they bought into the Patriot Act. Really, it seems the only time they really dig their heels in and refuse to budge is if you try to screw with the unions, apparently.
 
2011-02-20 05:22:47 PM  

RobertBruce: words


WMD never had anything to do with it. If it did, we'd take out N. Korea.

Genocide had nothing to do with it. If it did, we'd have intervened in Darfur.

The one thing both parties never waiver on is our "ally" in that neighborhood.
 
2011-02-20 05:23:15 PM  

sparkeyjames: Bull crap. Chimpy McFlightsuit wanted to finish what daddy started and get revenge for his buddies in Kuwait.


You don't get it. W needed to get that hug from his daddy. It's like the end of "Field of Dreams," except that instead of a baseball field, they're playing catch on a pile of dead American kids.
 
2011-02-20 05:23:58 PM  
If the Bush administration had known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it probably wouldn't have found another excuse decided to invade

It was inevitable
 
2011-02-20 05:24:15 PM  
Go on, pull the other one.
 
2011-02-20 05:25:07 PM  
WMDs were an excuse to steal oil, not the reason for the invasion.
 
2011-02-20 05:26:30 PM  

Nabb1: A Dark Evil Omen: Oh, if ONLY the Democrats hadn't been so obstructive! We wouldn't have been forced to concoct all that evidence to convince them, and then we would have been able to look at the real evidence instead of all the fake evidence the Democrats made us gin up! Damned Democrats! Vote Republican!

The Democrats weren't selling it, but they bought in. And they bought into the Patriot Act. Really, it seems the only time they really dig their heels in and refuse to budge is if you try to screw with the unions, apparently.


Democrats weren't selling it?

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/

ORLY?
 
2011-02-20 05:32:31 PM  

FlashHarry: i know none of these traitors will ever be prosecuted. and as an atheist, i don't believe in hell. the only thing that keeps me going is knowing that history will eventually relegate bush and his cronies to the "bad" bin, along with harding, mussolini, franco, nero, and any number of feckless and evil leaders.


Dunno. Wasn't Reagan just voted "Greatest President EVAR" on a recent poll? The Right is really really good at believing their own revisionist history. Anything outside their preferred reality is too scary to contemplate.
 
2011-02-20 05:33:16 PM  
Nice troll, subby.
 
2011-02-20 05:37:22 PM  

Ivo Shandor: If he wanted to find the WMDs then he should have searched the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.


Or somewhere in the back.
 
2011-02-20 05:41:14 PM  

mat catastrophe: Nabb1: A Dark Evil Omen: Oh, if ONLY the Democrats hadn't been so obstructive! We wouldn't have been forced to concoct all that evidence to convince them, and then we would have been able to look at the real evidence instead of all the fake evidence the Democrats made us gin up! Damned Democrats! Vote Republican!

The Democrats weren't selling it, but they bought in. And they bought into the Patriot Act. Really, it seems the only time they really dig their heels in and refuse to budge is if you try to screw with the unions, apparently.

Democrats weren't selling it?

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/

ORLY?


I hear ya, but the original determination came from the neocons and their puppet Prez. The lies then started to flow and the Demos jumped on the bandwagon because they are politically spineless.

The GOP, however, is downright evil. The Bushies were the leaders of the disastrous.
 
2011-02-20 05:42:58 PM  
Whatever happened to all those boxes of documents and computer disks that were turned over by Iraq shortly before the invasion?

/or did they end up in the 'memory hole'?
 
2011-02-20 05:45:37 PM  

sparkeyjames: Bull crap. Chimpy McFlightsuit wanted to finish what daddy started and get revenge for his buddies in Kuwait.


As much as I hate Bush (and trust me, I do) I'm pretty sure it was more a matter of people like Cheney, Rummy (and other members of P.N.A.C.) manipulating him into doing what they wanted. They wanted to attack Iraq, and they gave Bush reasons to do so, and possibly even made him think that it was his idea all along.
 
2011-02-20 05:46:02 PM  
I wonder when Rummy will apologize to Scott Ritter?

/crickets
 
2011-02-20 05:48:33 PM  

whidbey: Nice troll, subby.



FTA: Asked if the United States would not have invaded if the administration hadn't believed Iraq had the weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld said: "I think that's probably right."


How in the fark is the headline trolling?
 
2011-02-20 05:49:15 PM  

Zombalupagus: hey wanted to attack Iraq, and they gave Bush reasons to do so, and possibly even made him think that it was his idea all along.


Nuh uh.

www.thundersquee.com

Saddam tried to assassinate MY DADDY.
 
2011-02-20 05:52:34 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: How in the fark is the headline trolling?


Because subby (you?) wants libs to think Bush was "duped" when everyone knows damn well (except subby) (=you?) that Iraq was initiated on false pretenses and that the Bush administration committed what amounts to war crimes.

When all we're doing is repeating what should be common knowledge by now, it's just a troll to paint it otherwise.
 
2011-02-20 05:57:27 PM  
Lies, damned lies, and Republicans. Don't forget CNN was just a pro war syncophant. Total failures.
 
2011-02-20 05:57:27 PM  

Nabb1: The Democrats weren't selling it, but they bought in. And they bought into the Patriot Act. Really, it seems the only time they really dig their heels in and refuse to budge is if you try to screw with the unions, apparently.


My, how times have changed. When President Bush stood on the deck of the USS Lincoln, with a "Mission Accomplished" banner waving in the breeze behind him, I don't recall any of our friends on the Right saying "it's great that Democrats and Republicans worked together to fight terrorism". What I heard was usually more like "thank God the Republicans are in charge".

Yet now that everything has gone to shiat, suddenly it was a bipartisan effort.
 
2011-02-20 05:58:18 PM  
You can tell when this douchebag is lying. His lips move. That entrire administration should be in prison.
 
2011-02-20 05:58:41 PM  

uncoveror: WMDs were an excuse to steal oil, not the reason for the invasion.


At least we can use the oil to pay for it.
 
2011-02-20 05:58:44 PM  
well, that's why pencils have erasers.
 
2011-02-20 05:59:25 PM  

whidbey: Because subby (you?) wants libs to think Bush was "duped" when everyone knows damn well (except subby) (=you?) that Iraq was initiated on false pretenses and that the Bush administration committed what amounts to war crimes.

When all we're doing is repeating what should be common knowledge by now, it's just a troll to paint it otherwise.



I'm not subby and I don't completely disagree with you, but just getting a member of the Bush admin to admit that there wasn't a WMD program is a small step in the right direction. And also admitting that it was really the only pretense for invading is another step. It makes it difficult for the republicant supporters to keep pretending that WMD's existed and that wasn't the main reason for invading, which has been their party line for 8 years now.

I still don't see how subby correctly quoting an article amounts to trolling.
 
2011-02-20 06:06:01 PM  

sparkeyjames: Bull crap. Chimpy McFlightsuit wanted to finish what daddy started and get revenge for his buddies in Kuwait.


Look, a moron who doesn't know history. Will there be anyone else?

AirForceVet: No, the Bush Administration was going to invade Iraq, WMDs or not. The WMDs story was cover for their hidden agenda.

Thanks for all the dead and wounded Americans, Allies, and Iraqis, George W. Bush!


And that's two, can we have three?

VictoryCabal: WMDs had absolutely nothing to do with why Iraq was invaded. WMDs were the story that was used to sell the invasion the the American people, but it was not the reason.

The neocons in the Bush administration had been lobbying for an invasion of Iraq since the first Bush administration. It was part of their grand vision: Invade Iraq and topple Saddam, and a secular, Isreal-friendly, Jeffersonian democracy would magically spring up. This would provide a staging ground for invasions of nearby countries like Iran or Syria, who would then fall and other friendly democracies would spring up. Democracies who would be amenable to American economic interests (Oil) and not threaten Isreal. This is what they actually believed would happen, the poor dopes. They actually thought they could bomb their way to friendship.

Anyway, the people in the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq from the very first day. It was only after 9/11 that they could use a phony WMD story to get the political ability to actually do.

The WMD story was ALWAYS bogus.


Three with a bonus!

I'm just guessing that the Clinton administration was also in on this conspiracy since they too constantly prattled on about Saddam's WMD to say nothing of all the Democrats that went on about WMD during the years that Clinton was in office.

And that's not even counting the number of other agencies and governments around the world who all said Saddam had WMD.

And why wouldn't we believe that? Since we know for an absolute fact that Saddam did indeed use WMD several times previously. Did he use them all up perhaps?

So in addition to the stupidity of 'not knowing history' you also bring in completely trumped up conspiracy theories and other garbage.

Skleenar: The only thing entertaining about these threads is seeing who, after all these years of being shown to be full of shiat, still white knights for these assholes.


Oh I agree completely but somehow I don't think we're talking about the same group of people. For the type of people I would use that particular line of yours on, see above.

Here's a history lesson for you: The Democrats did not want to liberate Kuwait and HW Bush wasn't that keen on the invasion of Iraq anyway. It was almost universally agreed that we were liberating Kuwait and that's precisely what the Democrats agree to go along with, if reluctantly.

The UN and its usual crowd of idiots were also not keen on the invasion of Iraq either even after it invaded Kuwait.

So that 'job HW Bush didn't finish' was him doing precisely what all the good little liberals wanted... Except the part where he liberated Kuwait.
 
2011-02-20 06:06:21 PM  
I wonder what Iraq would be like today if we hadn't gone to war. Saddam would be holed up in Tikrit vowing that he would never give up power while Kurd and Shia protests rocked the nation. Oh, what could have been.
 
2011-02-20 06:09:37 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: I still don't see how subby correctly quoting an article amounts to trolling.


Unless subby's being sarcastic, that's exactly what it is. "If" Bush had known. Good one.
 
2011-02-20 06:10:34 PM  

SoxSweepAgain: I hear ya, but the original determination came from the neocons and their puppet Prez. The lies then started to flow and the Demos jumped on the bandwagon because they are politically spineless.



Sadly have to agree on the spineless thing, in most cases. Also remember how soon they proceeded with this, after 9/11 -- the 'popular wisdom' at the time was that going against the administration on this would be political suicide. Hell, look how they went after non-elected people who made things difficult for them.


The GOP, however, is downright evil. The Bushies were the leaders of the disastrous.


Another thing that still pisses me off a decade later is how they folded a war, a political party, a propaganda apparatus, lobbyists, and their big donors into one big nasty corrupt mess. They held seminars on how to get rich off the damn "war on terror" for loyal Bushies only. Thousands dead and wounded, so their benefactors could cash in...
 
2011-02-20 06:11:52 PM  

Mentat: Oh, what could have been.


That Saddam might have even stepped down...without any outside intervention.
 
2011-02-20 06:13:06 PM  
Required reading:
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2011-02-20 06:16:17 PM  

FlashHarry: bullshiat. they were planning the invasion back in the mid nineties. and as soon as bush took power, it got the green light. hell, rummy talked about attacking iraq on 9/11, even though they knew it was bin laden.

i know none of these traitors will ever be prosecuted. and as an atheist, i don't believe in hell. the only thing that keeps me going is knowing that history will eventually relegate bush and his cronies to the "bad" bin, along with harding, mussolini, franco, nero, and any number of feckless and evil leaders.


www.freeimagehosting.net

"You're the one who likes cigars, right? Try smoking this."
 
2011-02-20 06:18:11 PM  
fark you Rumsfeld, you cock.
 
2011-02-20 06:18:53 PM  

The Fourth Karamazov: fark you Rumsfeld, you cock.


Have they named an airport after him yet?
 
2011-02-20 06:20:02 PM  
Thrill in amazement as Donnie Do Nothing golly-goshes his way through another softball session!

"Golly! Who knew intel could be THAT faulty?"

"Nobody who we didn't fire ever told me we needed more troops to secure the country! Gee whiz!"

"Heavens to Betsy! Disbanding the Iraqi army and ignoring the insurgency seemed like a peachy idea."
 
2011-02-20 06:27:00 PM  
If the Bush administration had known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it probably wouldn't have decided to invade...um, oops

Didn't they decide to attack long before they came up with their excuse?
 
2011-02-20 06:33:41 PM  
If only there had been an opposition party that had been strong enough to stop Evil Bush from doing anything.


Like what we have now....
 
Displayed 50 of 91 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report