Administration Lied Hundreds of Times About Iraq

Cerise said:
Any theories as to why Congress authorized military force?
Click to expand...

lack of knowledge about the situation combined with detrimental reliance on parties with absurdly idealistic, and again, ill-informed, agendas?

oh wait, right, i forgot, anybody who doesn't support the thinking behind the most expensive miscalculation in history is some kind of bleeding heart freak. so, then, let me take that back, and simply offer....


GO TEAM! :rainfrow:
 
Our efforts against terrorism cannot and will not end with this strike. We should have realistic expectations about what a single action can achieve. And we must be prepared for a long battle. But it's high time that those who traffic in terror learn they, too, are vulnerable....As we close ranks against international threats, we must remember this: America will never give up the openness, the freedom and the tolerance that define us. For the ultimate target of these terrorist attacks is our ideals, and they must be defended at any cost.
Click to expand...

Double standard
 
spike said:
Oh are you looking for some other excuse to trot out joke emails from your inbox when you don't have anything intelligent to say on that subject?
Click to expand...

No. I'm just wondering why you put all the blame on President Bush and not give any luv to the September 18, 2001 Congressional authorization for military force.
 
Congress voted for military action...twice.
The UN Security Council also said Go Ahead.
I can pull up a hundred examples of current polticians who were all for this...since the 90's.

Only GW actually acted...after getting Congresional approval.
 
Cerise said:
No. I'm just wondering why you put all the blame on President Bush and not give any luv to the September 18, 2001 Congressional authorization for military force.
Click to expand...

Commander-In-Chief maybe? Lied hundreds of times.

But sure, I also blame anyone who was fooled by the lies to an extent.
 
2minkey said:
lack of knowledge about the situation combined with detrimental reliance on parties with absurdly idealistic, and again, ill-informed, agendas?

oh wait, right, i forgot, anybody who doesn't support the thinking behind the most expensive miscalculation in history is some kind of bleeding heart freak. so, then, let me take that back, and simply offer....


GO TEAM! :rainfrow:
Click to expand...

Helps me eliminate my credit-card debt. :p

Oh, yeah. Almost forgot...You commie. :p


Once again, I'll post this link. I just hope it still works. (Just stirring the pot since I was gone for a few days).
 
“He [Saddam] told me he initially miscalculated ... President Bush’s intentions,” said Piro. “He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack.”
Click to expand...

Saddam's fatal error was that he mistook Bush for Clinton

Saddam publicly denied having unconventional weapons before the U.S. invasion, but prevented U.N. inspectors from working in the country from 1998 until 2002 and when they finally returned in November 2002, they often complained that Iraq wasn’t fully cooperating.

Piro added that Saddam had the intention of restarting an Iraqi weapons program at the time, and had engineers available for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...


AKA: "B-b-b-b-b-but Boooosh lied"
 
In other words...it was a game of brinkmanship and the instigator of this game lost.

As for the cost, minkmeister, its irrelevant at this time. Hell...it became irrelevant the day we started the attack. I won't go into why I think that any more. I'm sure you understand what I said, even if you don't agree with it.
 
What;s your point? You were getting blown up so many times before that your missing it now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top