cicerone imposter wrote: Brandon is either a comic or a sick man.
He wrote:
We invaded Iraq to protect ourselves from the prospect of a Saddam Hussein armed with doomsday weapons.
FACT: BUSH LIED: The Bush administration religiously chanted the contention that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction as its basis for a war.
For example, in his address to the nation Bush said the intelligence "leaves no doubt that . . . Iraq . . . continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Vice President Cheney also was part of the chorus and declared that "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
FACTS: According to the CIA's Duelfer's Report Iraq:
§ HAD NO WMD's.
§ "had no . . . strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions" ended.
§ Iraq failed "to acquire long range Iraq's nuclear program ended in 1991 following the Gulf War."
§ "Iraq unilaterally destroyed is undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter."
§ In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent product systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons."
Your personal attacks on me are irrelevant and really have no valid place in a debate.
You're referring to a CIA report that came out in late 2004. The US invaded Iraq in March 2003. We know the status of Iraq's WMD programs at the time of invasion, precisely because we invaded. You have utterly failed to distinguish between Bush lying, and Bush being wrong. Hussien had indeed possessed these weapons, or else wouldn't have promised in a treaty to verifiably destroy them. The only question is how recently he possessed them and programs to develop them, not whether he did. He had promised to verifiably destroy them, and could have prevented the invasion many years earlier simply by filming their destruction and leading UN inspectors to the remains of the destroyed WMD, rather than by lying and misleading inspectors for years. Many, many people believed it was likely that instead of destroying the weapons, Hussein had merely become more adept at hiding them. The only criticism of the president that I think is correct is that he shouldn't have presented the case as certain, but he seems to have been frightened of a building future danger for the US and the world - an evil, madman armed with nukes and bioweapons.
cicerone imposter wrote:Brandon wrote:
We were protecting ourselves, and also requiring Hussein to comply with the surrender treaty he signed after annexing Kuwait. We were not bullying anyone. We have no expectation of anyone falling down and kissing our feet.
BUSH LIED: The Bush administration repeatedly claimed that Iraq presented an imminent threat to the US and its allies, although it would later claim:
On January 27, 2004, White House spokesman Scot McClellan claimed that the administration never said Iraq was an imminent threat...
He did not. I defy you to find one single quotation in which the president claimed that the threat from Iraq was imminent. What he said was that he wouldn't allow a gathering threat to become imminent while he did nothing.
cicerone imposter wrote:Brandon wouldn't know the truth from a lie if it slapped him in the face. There's no cure for stupid.
This does nothing to further your argument or demonstrate that your ideas are more accurate than mine.
Heres who you guys voted for
