Liberalnutjobs Forum :: FAQ :: Search :: Memberlist :: Usergroups :: Album

Random Liberal Quotes...

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

Iraqi War -GET OUT NOW

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3

Liberalnutjobs Forum // Iraqi War

Freedom
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:33 pm Post subject: Secret Memos

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
articles and memos are long, therefore quoting main points
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

- Downing Street Memos

Quote:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Quote:

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

Quote:

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

Quote:

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

Quote:

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors.

Quote:

But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

Quote:

He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Quote:

The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

Freedom
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject: WMD

Bush Administration on WMD's

Ever-changing views:

PHASE I - IRAQ HAS NOT ACQUIRED WMD

"I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box." He added [Saddam] "is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" and that "he threatens not the United States."

Colin Powell, Secretary of State

PHASE II - THERE IS NO DOUBT IRAQ HAS ACQUIRED WMD

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Dick Cheney, Vice President
8/26/2002

PHASE III - WE'VE GOT DETAILED AND SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT IRAQ'S WMD

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

George W. Bush, President
9/12/2002

PHASE IV - IRAQ IS AN IMMINENT THREAT TO ATTACK THE WORLD WITH WMD

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

George W. Bush
3/17/2003

PHASE V - WE WILL SOON REVEAL THE WMD

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."

George W. Bush
3/3/2003

PHASE VI - WE WERE NEVER REALLY SURE WHERE THEY WERE, BUT WE HOPE SOON TO LOCATE WMD

"We’re not going to find anything until we find people who tell us where the things are. And we have that very high on our priority list, to find the people who know. And when we do, then we'll learn precisely where things were and what was done."

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
4/13/2003

PHASE VII - WE'VE FOUND WMD

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

George W. Bush, President
5/29/2003

PHASE VIII - WE CAN'T BE BLAMED FOR WHATEVER WE GOT WRONG ABOUT WMD

"No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored."

Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
6/8/2003

PHASE IX - OUR CRITICS ARE BEING UNREASONABLE ABOUT WMD

If we had had that information and ignored it, if we'd been told, as we were, by the intelligence community that he was capable of producing a nuclear weapon within a year if he could acquire fissile material and ignored it... we would have been derelict in our duties and responsibilities."

Vice President Dick Cheney
10/3/2003

PHASE X - WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHAT WE SAID ABOUT WMD?

"DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still—"

PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?"

12/16/03
Interview with Diane Sawyer

CONCLUSION

no WMD... just "fixing facts about the policy" as seen in the downing street minutes.
[/quote]

Freedom
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject:

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 17, 2003

Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation
The Cross Hall

8:10 PM EST

Quote:

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

not true, in fact, Saddam hated and distrusted Al qaeda

Quote:

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

no weapons...no wmds..

Quote:

In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

Saddam dead.. terror threat? no change if not worse

Quote:

With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest.

what terrorist allies?

Quote:

Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

What threat... what weapons...

in conclusion... no threat, no wmds, no links with terror... what then is the justification of the war
[/quote]

Freedom
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:30 pm Post subject: bush-blair memo

Five page memo... only newpaper reports and quotes here...

Quote:

A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.

"The diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning", the president told Mr Blair. The prime minister is said to have raised no objection. He is quoted as saying he was "solidly with the president and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam".

note the bit about attacking whether or not they had weapons.. i wonder why?

Quote:

Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".

Luring to attack, bush said it so it must be justified, for bush is an honest person.

Quote:

Mr Bush even expressed the hope that a defector would be extracted from Iraq and give a "public presentation about Saddam's WMD". He is also said to have referred Mr Blair to a "small possibility" that Saddam would be "assassinated".

assassination, bush said it so it must be justified, for bush is an honest person.

Quote:

Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.

no inter-religious battle.. i guess what we are seeing on the news are lies. for bush said it so it must be true, for bush is an honest person.

"The fact that consideration was apparently given to using American military aircraft in UN colours in the hope of provoking Saddam Hussein is a graphic illustration of the rush to war. It would also appear to be the case that the diplomatic efforts in New York after the meeting of January 31 were simply going through the motions.

Quote:

On March 7 2003 he advised the prime minister that the Bush administration believed that a case could be made for an invasion without a second UN resolution. But he warned that Britain could be challenged in the international criminal court. Ten days later, he said a second resolution was not necessary.

"challenged in the international criminal court" hmm...

- US is a major world power, its strength and might is well known around the world. Other nations hold the US as a role model, a symbol of modernity and sucessful social development.

How can you compare such a powerful nation with small groups of terrorists? Invading a country to weed out the terrorists is unjustified. What goes on inside someone else's country is none of your business unless a threat is evident. Saddam was not a threat. But in his death, he has become one.

The trauma heaped upon Iraq will cause the rise of many potential terrorists, hate fuels hate.

btw.. i know how to use a forum, im just not a member therefore, i cant post [img] tag with links .

Freedom
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject:

Oops .. forgot to mention, most of that came from BBC, New York times, etc... more info available there too.

bush08
Site Admin

Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 62

Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:45 am Post subject:

Freedom wrote:

Oops .. forgot to mention, most of that came from BBC, New York times, etc... more info available there too.

Post the quote. You've been called out and now it seems you're at a loss for words. BBC, NY Times...little to vague. The quote is not there.

You've said it now back it up. Quote where Bush tied Iraq to 9-11 attacks.

I'm calling you a flat out liar and trying to undermine American moral with lies giving 'aid and comfort' to Americas enemies in a time of war which is by definition an act of treason if you are an American.

People whom clearly hate America will give the 'Bush lied and thousands died' , but it's really interesting how they can never find the lie.

Post it. Post the quote from the NY Times or the BBC.

Post the connection quote of the September 11 attacks being tied to Iraq from President Bush.

Here's what you'll do

1) be vague ( already done this )
2) Deflect and try to talk about WMDs or something else. ( already done this too.)
3) Scour the internet in search of a non BBC or NY Times source for the quote from some communist blog and just find it incredibly odd that what would be an infamous quote was never picked up by the NY times...hmmmm
4) Look in the mirror and have an epiphany, realize that you're wrong and maybe you're a kool aid drinking liar who loves bashing America.

And a side note for your quotes and talking points obviously deflecting from answering your bold faced lie

1) On WMDs it's nausiating, it really is. You want quotes from Bill Clinton, Al Gore, British officials, Putin, the rest of the world? They all said they believed he had WMDs.
2) Terrorist ties, you have to be kidding me. Unbelievable how many suicide bombers, and how many bodies, and how many streets Saddam named after them then paying families of the suicide bombers 10,000 USD. You don't care about that oh...no. Oh first World Trade Center attack....no ties, who is that we still have incarcerated, that Iraqi? See you'll have to look it up ( but you won't ) as I'd imagine you will only focus on any angle that undermines America.

Now post the quote. Post the quote as you're still a flat out liar. Yes....9/11 and tying to Iraq....quote.

Lets not keep deflecting but actually answer for your multitude of lies.

Freedom wrote:

The war itself was unjustified. Having launched a pre-emptivie war and lied to the public about it. Bush had few options. So during his internationally televised speech to the nation from Fort Bragg on June 28, he put on a brave front, and vowed to stay with the war.

Quote the Lie because you just did lie. Quote the lie, please.

Freedom wrote:

At first he stated it was to locate and eliminate WMD's. He also claimed the Saddam was a threat to the US, and implied that he was behind the 9/11 strikes.
Of course he wasn't.

Never, nope, nada, find the quote. You're rewriting history because you hate America. Flat out.

Freedom wrote:

Then, when no WMD's were found, he changed tact and said it was to spread democracy in the middle east... it wasnt... and still isnt.

Timeline a little off here. State of the Union way BEFORE...WOW, lies.

Freedom wrote:

Then, he claimed that it was a war on terror, once again bringing back 9/11 and wrongly reinforcing what many Americans believe. that Iraq cause 9/11.. which of course... is not true. (people seemed to have forgotten about Afghanistan, and the ruin that was left there...)

You are a flat out liar, then you don't answer for it, you just cut and paste a bunch of things that in no way shape or form justify your anti-American flat out lies.

Freedom
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:31 pm Post subject:

lol. Calm down.

If you read carefully i specifically used the word "implied"

Quote:

At first he stated it was to locate and eliminate WMD's. He also claimed the Saddam was a threat to the US, and implied that he was behind the 9/11 strikes.
Of course he wasn't.

notice the word implied?
How?

Quote:

Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two.

h t t p : / / n e w s . b b c . c o .u k / 2 / h i / a m e r i c a s / 3 1 1 9 6 7 6. s t m

Here is one of many associations :

Quote:

We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

In march 2003

Quote:

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

In september 2003

Quote:

A recent opinion poll suggests that 70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.

As for links with Al - Qaeda

h t t p : / / w w w . w a s h i n g t o n p o s t . c o m / w p - d y n / a r t i c l e s / A 4 7 8 1 2 [dash] 2004 J u n 1 6. h t m l

Quote:

[Thursday, June 17, 2004 ]The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

As for the Iraqi i assume you mean Zarqawi

Quote:

'No links' between Al Qaeda and Saddam

Saddam Hussein had no ties with Al Qaeda or key operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before the Iraq war, a US Senate report has found.

w w w . u s a t o d a y . c o m / n e w s / w a s h i n g t o n / 2 0 0 3 [dash] 0 7 [dash] 1 3 - b u s h - a l q a e d a _ x . h t m

w w w . a b c . n e t . a u / n e w s / n e w s i t e m s / 2 0 0 6 0 9 / s 1 7 3 6 9 0 6 . h t m

As for WMD support. i think Putin said something about it saying Iraq has it (a quote could help [ps. not calling you a lair]) but please elaborate on the "rest of the world"

And as for

Quote:

See you'll have to look it up ( but you won't ) as I'd imagine you will only focus on any angle that undermines America.

I like to look a both sides as much as i can. to get a better perspective and make judgment. I can only decide on what i can see. I do not deny the possibility that in fact, Saddam was dangerous, that he had WMD's and so on.. but based on the facts i can see (eg. the memos, lack of WMD, changing views and motives etc..) i not see how this war was legitimate and justified.

PS. Maybe your being a bit hypocritical? I dunno, i dont see you adressing evidence against it. eg the memos stating the "fixing of fact around the policy" and the plans of "sending planes in UN colours" to lure Saddam into attacking.. I fail to see how this suggests a legitimate war.

As for treason , It's one thing to speak out against a conflict (as i am doing). It's another thing to go fraternize and cavort with the enemy and publicly express your support for their cause and to denounce your own country on their soil in the process. My statements are clearly protected under the right to free speech and it does nothing directly to benefit the cause of our adversaries.

Quote:

"AID AND COMFORT. The constitution of the United States, art. 8, s. 3, declares, that adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, shall be treason. These words, as they are to be
understood in the constitution, have not received a full judicial
construction. They import, however, help, support, assistance,
countenance, encouragement. The word aid, which occurs in the Stat.
West. 1, c. 14, is explained by Lord Coke (2 just. 182) as
comprehending all persons counselling, abetting, plotting, assenting, consenting, and encouraging to do the act, (and he adds, what is not applicable to the Crime to treason,) who are not present when the act is done, See, also, 1 Burn's Justice, 5, 6; 4 Bl. Com. 37, 38."

Defining statement : "They [violators] import, however [by whatever means], help, support,
assistance, countenance, [and] encouragement [to the enemy]."

Clearly one cannot be considered or found guilty of AIDING unless such aid is imported to the enemy.

NOTE: If one day, hard, undeniable evidence is found indicating that Saddam was a true threat at the time, i shall accept i am wrong (and possible drink a kool aid) but prior to such an event, i will argue my case with what information i have. btw. i might not reply to posts for a while. will be busy Smile

btw, i cant post http adresses either. you may have to remove the spaces and change [dash] to " - "

Ciao

bush08
Site Admin

Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 62

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:05 am Post subject:

Wow, now you're really sidestepping. Dissent is fine, lying to undermine America which is clearly your goal on every angle is not fine.

Freedom wrote:

Again here you said lied

Once again post the lie

Unreal.

Freedom wrote:

At first he stated it was to locate and eliminate WMD's. He also claimed the Saddam was a threat to the US, and implied that he was behind the 9/11 strikes.
Of course he wasn't.

Sure, I'll concede technically you put implied however it's a follow-up to the quote above. PLEASE POST THE LIE. You're sounding like Clinton debating what the word 'is' is....Amazing.

Freedom wrote:

Then, when no WMD's were found, he changed tact and said it was to spread democracy in the middle east... it wasnt... and still isnt.

You're rewriting history and your timeline is way off.

Freedom wrote:

Wrongly reinforcing, once again. Please, and people forgetting about Afghanistan? There are still troops over there, and the ruin that was left there?! Wow yeah maybe after the Taliban. You of course imply (as that seems the word you like) the United States ruined AFGHANISTAN! I'm not sure that's even possible, but I do know Afghanis are better of socially, economically, and in almost every fashion.

So still waiting on the lie.

Freedom wrote:

lol. Calm down.

If you read carefully i specifically used the word "implied"

At first he stated it was to locate and eliminate WMD's. He also claimed the Saddam was a threat to the US, and implied that he was behind the 9/11 strikes.
Of course he wasn't.
notice the word implied?
How?

You used the word "lied" and followed up with "implied"

Freedom wrote:

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

Here is one of many associations :

Quote:

Please... Iran, Lebanon,Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. also has trained members and cheered. This administration has also stated these facts constantly, but you (and your anti American news sources) just take out excerpts on Iraq.

Freedom wrote:

In march 2003

Quote:

In september 2003

Quote:

A recent opinion poll suggests that 70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.

I think we can squarely thank the great public school system. A large amount of American.

BTW
Americans that can name the three branches of U.S. government (executive, judicial, legislative): 42 percent.

Freedom wrote:

As for links with Al - Qaeda

h t t p : / / w w w . w a s h i n g t o n p o s t . c o m / w p - d y n / a r t i c l e s / A 4 7 8 1 2 [dash] 2004 J u n 1 6. h t m l

Quote:

As for the Iraqi i assume you mean Zarqawi

Quote:

'No links' between Al Qaeda and Saddam

Saddam Hussein had no ties with Al Qaeda or key operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before the Iraq war, a US Senate report has found.

w w w . u s a t o d a y . c o m / n e w s / w a s h i n g t o n / 2 0 0 3 [dash] 0 7 [dash] 1 3 - b u s h - a l q a e d a _ x . h t m

w w w . a b c . n e t . a u / n e w s / n e w s i t e m s / 2 0 0 6 0 9 / s 1 7 3 6 9 0 6 . h t m

You're the one trying to say Bush and the administration lied and linked 9/11 and Iraq. I don't agree, and the Al-Quaeda connection is minimal, however yes Zarqawi was well documented as well as multiple high level meeting between Iraqi officials and Al-Quaeda. Collaboration probably and most likely never happened.

But the lefties (you) say that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq because there were no ties to Al-Quaeda.

Now you argue that Bush screwed up Iraq and Al-Quaeda is now rampant there.

Now that Al-Quaeda is definitely in Iraq you want to bail immediately.

This is where the logic becomes clearly to have America defeated.

Freedom wrote:

As for WMD support. i think Putin said something about it saying Iraq has it (a quote could help [ps. not calling you a lair]) but please elaborate on the "rest of the world"

Gladly. I'll go with the 2 that actually have viable and active Middle East intelligence. Obviously the first quote from the French were adamantly nonsupporting of the war. There are many other world leaders, but I'd be sceptical even though they support the same position as they're probably going off others and unindependent intel.

Quote:

"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

Quote:

"It [the intelligence service] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability..."

Freedom wrote:

And as for

Quote:

See you'll have to look it up ( but you won't ) as I'd imagine you will only focus on any angle that undermines America.

If you were unbiased you wouldn't take every opportunity to undermine America. You actively change timelines and engage in untruths and deceptions all aimed to harming America in a time of war.

There was overwhelming evidence again from many sources. Also Saddam was actively looking for yellowcake uranium. Yep, the whole Valarie Plame deal did in fact bring this out.

That aside, we're there now. The WMD argument is amazingly mindnumbingly irrelevant at this point. Anti war activist harp it to death saying bush changed the reason after the WMDs were not found and this is untrue. It's one of many reasons stated such as a democracy in the middle east.

Freedom wrote:

As for treason , It's one thing to speak out against a conflict (as i am doing). It's another thing to go fraternize and cavort with the enemy and publicly express your support for their cause and to denounce your own country on their soil in the process. My statements are clearly protected under the right to free speech and it does nothing directly to benefit the cause of our adversaries.

Quote:

Propaganda counts. Again dissent is fine, distorting facts to undermine America is different.

Freedom wrote:

NOTE: If one day, hard, undeniable evidence is found indicating that Saddam was a true threat at the time, i shall accept i am wrong (and possible drink a kool aid) but prior to such an event, i will argue my case with what information i have. btw. i might not reply to posts for a while. will be busy Smile

btw, i cant post http adresses either. you may have to remove the spaces and change [dash] to " - "

Ciao

[/quote]

It's irrelevant on WMDs. It's important to look at where to go from here. What if they do find them? Saddams dead, there's no going back. That's the whole point. I agree there were probably no WMDs, the ENTIRE WORLD was wrong.

The link posting might be a browser error but I'll look into it, other post them fine.

Freedom
Guest

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 7:47 pm Post subject:

Lol.

maybe you're right. perhaps im just one of the 68% that cant name the 3 sectors

Smile

Quote:

It's irrelevant on WMDs. It's important to look at where to go from here. What if they do find them? Saddams dead, there's no going back. That's the whole point. I agree there were probably no WMDs, the ENTIRE WORLD was wrong.

I completely agree with you... no going back...Just having problems with the fact the war started...

Rooster5113

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Posts: 2

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:54 pm Post subject: Re: Iraqi War -GET OUT NOW

hillary08 wrote:

Neo_cons are pathetic especially the one that came up with this site, it just goes to show that when conservatives don't agree on something they must resort to name calling.

In regards to the Irag war we should leave now. Bush lied about Weapons of Mass Distruction, lied about an imminent threat by Saddam and it is the US and the Bush administration that is the real terrorists. If Al Gore or John Kerry had won the office, as we all know they really did, we would not be in the place we are now. Evil or Very Mad

Again... Saddam used WMD's on the Kurds and Iran; we agree? This means he had them, pretty basic shit here.

	Liberalnutjobs Forum // Iraqi War	All times are GMT + 13 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

Add this topic to your bookmarks

You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Sitemap