Document Details WMD Recovered In Iraq

[kpbuckeye 2]

If you want to say that the WMD's were moved and that we will never find them in Iraq, that is one thing. However, that is not the point of your (pointless) post. The post is about Santorum standing up in front of Congress saying, "We told you they had a WMD program and here is the proof", when that is not true. What was found was stuff that is old, made prior to 1991, and completely expected regardless of whether there was a WMD program in place.

 

The bottom line is that we went into Iraq because we thought that they had an active WMD program and we still have no proof of it. I agreed with going in at the time based upon that info and I can admit that I was wrong. Why can't you?

 

 

many of us didn't base our opinions on just the WMD factor.

There were many reasons for going in and doing what was right.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

many of us didn't base our opinions on just the WMD factor.

There were many reasons for going in and doing what was right.

 

I did not base it on a single factor either. Does not mean that it was the right thing to do in hindsight. I wish we could get a do-over.

[pimptastic69 0]

I did not base it on a single factor either. Does not mean that it was the right thing to do in hindsight. I wish we could get a do-over.

 

It's kind of like when the police accidentally bust in the wrong door while in search of a meth lab. Only in this case, we're rebuilding it with solid oak jambs.

[Uh-huh 0]

many of us didn't base our opinions on just the WMD factor.

There were many reasons for going in and doing what was right.

Bullcrap. That is pure, unadulterated, after-the-fact spin.

 

The facts are these: the Bush administration sold the war based on WMDs. You all bought it. Heck, even the libs bought it: "Well, if the President says Saddam has WMDs, it must be true... after all, he's the Prez.... he wouldn't LIE about something so important, would he?"

 

Was Saddam a brutal dictator? Yes.

Did he deserve to go down? Yes.

Did we have to waste 2500+ American lives and 300+ billion dollars to do it? No.

[GettnHuge 1]

You all bought it. Heck, even the libs bought it: "Well, if the President says Saddam has WMDs, it must be true... after all, he's the Prez.... he wouldn't LIE about something so important, would he?"

 

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

 

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

 

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

------------------------------------

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

 

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

 

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

 

And so we had to act and act now.

---------------------------------------

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

 

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort.

--------------------------------------

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

 

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

 

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

You mean crazy lies like these?

 

(excerpts are from bill clinton's address to the nation: 12/16/1998)

[Uh-huh 0]

You mean crazy lies like these?

 

(excerpts are from bill clinton's address to the nation: 12/16/1998)

Drunk again, eh? Stop sneaking shots from Daddy's vodka bottle.

 

Are airstrikes = invasion? No.

 

Did Clinton order an invasion? No.

 

Was Clinton President in March 2003? No.

 

Are you obsessed with assigning blame to Clinton because you are afraid of looking like an idiot for supporting Bush? Absolutely.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

It's kind of like when the police accidentally bust in the wrong door while in search of a meth lab. Only in this case, we're rebuilding it with solid gold jambs and lubed with the blood of American soldiers.

Fixed

[kpbuckeye 2]

Drunk again, eh? Stop sneaking shots from Daddy's vodka bottle.

 

Are airstrikes = invasion? No.

 

Did Clinton order an invasion? No.

 

Was Clinton President in March 2003? No.

 

Are you obsessed with assigning blame to Clinton because you are afraid of looking like an idiot for supporting Bush? Absolutely.

 

and you are not obsessed with Bush either are you..............no way.

 

 

Bullcrap. That is pure, unadulterated, after-the-fact spin.

 

The facts are these: the Bush administration sold the war based on WMDs. You all bought it. Heck, even the libs bought it: "Well, if the President says Saddam has WMDs, it must be true... after all, he's the Prez.... he wouldn't LIE about something so important, would he?"

 

Was Saddam a brutal dictator? Yes.

Did he deserve to go down? Yes.

Did we have to waste 2500+ American lives and 300+ billion dollars to do it? No.

 

 

 

You are right, we did not have to, and should not of had too.

The UN should have stepped up, but they didn't, so we had to.

This would be the pure unadulterated, after the fact truth. like it or not.

[doughboys_2002 11]

The liberal FoxNews even called Santorum out on this one

 

link

 

Colmes: It's Alan Colmes. Senator, the Iraq Survey Group, uhh, let me go to the Duelfer Report-says Iraq did not have the weapons our intelligence believed were there. And Jim Angle who reported this for Fox News-quotes a defense official who says these were pre-1991 weapons that could not have been fired as designed because they already been degraded.

 

And the official went on to say that they are-these are not the WMD's this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had-and not the WMD's for which this country went to war. So the chest beating that the Republicans are doing tonight thinking this is a justification is not confirmed by the defense department.

 

Santorum: Well, ahh, I'd like to know who that is. The fact of the matter is I'll wait and see what the actual Defense Department formally says or more importantly what the administration formally says. This report...

Am I the only one that cought this?

[fastfish 0]

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

 

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

 

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

------------------------------------

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

 

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

 

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

 

And so we had to act and act now.

---------------------------------------

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

 

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort.

--------------------------------------

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

 

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

 

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean crazy lies like these?

 

(excerpts are from bill clinton's address to the nation: 12/16/1998)

 

GH...You really own Duh-Huh...an easy game to be sure but still funny.

 

As I read your post I didn't realize those were Clinton's words...they are so very much the same as what Bush has said. Amazing that 2 US Presidents, with widely different political views, came to the same conclusion about Saddam. Equally amazing is how libs are in denial about this fact and blame Bush 100% for starting a "pointless" war.

 

The only thing pointless about the whole debate is trying to force libs to yank their heads outta their collective asses long enough to see the truth that Clinton saw: Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

 

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them

[gocolts 300]

Am I the only one that cought this?

 

No.Most of us already know FOX NEWS is very "liberal" in it's coverage.