Comments on: Study: WMD Attack In U.S. Likely By 2013
Commission Report Says A Nuclear Or Biological Attack Should Be Expected Within Five Years
Add a Comment See all 441 Comments
- 1. Hussein tried to assassinate Bush 41 in %u201993 (This alone was enough to take him out) Posted by poopnuts1111
Bush shot first, meddling on business that was not his. Bush Sr. had no business as a civilian, deliberately going to hostile areas
2. All the resolutions he ignored after the first Gulf War (Direct violation of cease-fire agreement) Posted by poopnuts1111
You yourself would object to another country imposing their rule on you, so the Iraqis don''t also have that right?
3. Terrorist group Ansar Al-Islam operating in Northern Iraq Posted by poopnuts1111
Nothing to do with any threat to the US.
4. Funding Hezbollah guerilla%u2019s for suicide bombings Posted by poopnuts1111
Nothing to do with any threat to the US.
5. Gassing the Kurds Posted by poopnuts1111
The US is aiding the Turks who are killing the same Kurds, so if Saddam was wrong, so are the Turks and the US.
6. Mass graves piled up Posted by poopnuts1111
You love making war on them, but are concerned with mass graves?
7. Torturing and sometimes killing political opponents Posted by poopnuts1111
Like Guantanamo, right...
8. Torturing their Olympic sports members Posted by poopnuts1111
Not our business
9. Popping our planes in the no fly zones (Direct violation of Cease-fire agreement) Posted by poopnuts1111
Our planes shouldn''t have been there to be popped.
10. Kicking out the UN inspectors (Direct violation of cease-fire agreement Posted by poopnuts1111
Cheney did that, you are mistaken. - Reply to this comment
- JOWAND -- You forgot about Charley Rangle who skimmed money and VIP priveledges along the way. Charley Rangle? A dummy democrat.....
Posted by poopnuts1111 at 02:26 PM : Dec 02, 2008
Yeah he wouldn''t fit in a single wide old just like Jack Murtha, a couple of lard a$$es. - Reply to this comment
- cause_a it is a shame you are wasting good air. But soon you will breath no more by the hands of those you think are your friends. So what is said by a dead man is nothing important. And what you say is only hateful and full of spite. And that is one reason your friends will grant you your wish to be a martyr, but no one will give you any earth to be buried in. Your bones will be scattered by wild dogs.
- Reply to this comment
- Prove him wrong, by showing where the WMDs are, if you cannot, then we who protested were correct.
Posted by brianbwb at 02:21 PM : Dec 02, 2008
Was this before you were for the war or after you were for the war? - Reply to this comment
- "So now that you know YOU and your party was wrong on Iraq, what say you?" Posted by poopnuts1111
Prove him wrong, by showing where the WMDs are, if you cannot, then we who protested were correct. - Reply to this comment
- Most likely targets will be big cites for maximum casualties. All the Lib''s will be headed out of the cities into them thar'' trailer parks at the first sign of trouble. Imagine John Kerry, Chuckyou Schumer, Nanci Pelosi sharing a single wide
- Reply to this comment
- cause_a.....I don''t know who you are or where you are from but I do one thing. You are a total ********. How dare you come on here and make insulting remarks about our dead soldiers. These fine young men and women were doing what they were trained to do and each one of them had more honor in their little finger than you have in your whole miserable body. My nephew was one who gave his life and I can assure you that he was a fine young man who left behind a wife and two small children. One other thing is apparent. You are not an American! So why don''t you take your ********* posts and put them where the sun don''t shine. You make me sick!
- Reply to this comment
- "You''''re really reaching on that one. It was not the sole premise for going in." Posted by codymac4
It was the only legal basis for the invasion of a sovereign state, it was the only charge that represented a "clear and present danger" to the US.
All the other BS was fluff to get the neocon war worshipers'' dander up, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the US.
Gassed Kurds? Well the US is allowing, even aiding the Turks to kill those same people even now, so that argument is dead.
Al Qaeda? Even the pentagon says that was BS. - Reply to this comment
- "brianbwb - do you identify with cause_a or Shazam ?"
Posted by Speakinup21
I identify with the rule of law, in America this means that no one is above it, not even the president, and if one chooses to violate it, then the legal consequence must be borne.
You might kill the dope dealer on your block, and feel justified for doing so, but the law says you still must stand for due process for your act. - Reply to this comment
- I''''m glad all those dummy liberals were on our side during that time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by poopnuts1111 at 01:56 PM : Dec 02, 2008
Actually I believe most liberals were protesting the invasion of Iraq, BEFORE IT EVER HAPPENED, on the strets, on-line and around the world. The largest protest against a single event, ever, historically.
And it was just a twinkle in a sociopath''s eye at the time. I know for *** *** SURE, I wasn''t on your side at that time. I''m sure CBSNews.com audit trails of comment bloggers could easily verify that. - Reply to this comment
- "Um, correct me if I''''m wrong, but wasn''''t Saddam Hussein removed from power not because we necessarily thought he had WMD, but because he refused to allow UN inspectors to enter and do their search?..." Posted by rrozsa
Actually they had conducted searches for two years, and Hans Blix said to the world in his report to the UN that there were no WMDs. Cheney then dismissed the word of the inspectors, and ordered them out of Iraq.
What Saddam refused to do was two-fold, one, he wouldn''t allow the ridiculous search of his homes for WMDs, and two, he wouldn''t admit to his domestic opposition that he was powerless, which was the plan from the start, Bush wanted to punk him out in hopes that Al Sadr''s boys would "do" him, but Saddam didn''t go for it. - Reply to this comment
- "brianbwb - the whole of the political arena agreed he was correct in his best intelligence, so don''''t make it sound like it was Bush''''s problem." Posted by Speakinup21
They did not agree, they gave Bush the benefit of the doubt, and while there should be some sanction for being suckers, it is not illegal, but again Bush made the call, he went on TV and said "On my orders..." so it is entirely his problem. - Reply to this comment
- Um, correct me if I''m wrong, but wasn''t Saddam Hussein removed from power not because we necessarily thought he had WMD, but because he refused to allow UN inspectors to enter and do their search? Those were the UN''s terms of the agreement to leave SH in power following his invasion of Kuwait, back in the early 90''s -- he must agree to submit to random searches by the UN. He repeatedly refused, and we kept extending his deadline, during which time he reportedly moved truckloads of who-knows-what into Syria, or buried them or whatever. All he had to do to avoid the war was to allow the inspectors to come in and see for themselves whether there were any WMD or not. Hussein brought it on himself. Don''t blame Bush or the UN for following through with the consequences of SD''s violation of those terms. If anything, they should have followed through with removing him from power way back after the Kuwait ordeal.
- Reply to this comment
- "...WHen terrorist groups pop up in Somalia, Kenya, the Phillipines, Europe, the Eukraine, Canada, South American, Japan, Indonesia, here in the US, etc...
Is Obama going to still say that the terror war starts and ends with Afghanistan?" Posted by poopnuts1111
Sane people would hope he will say that it is the problem of the countries in which they pop up, and only ours if they pop up in the US.
It is called sovereignty, and all nations have a right to it by international laws to which we are signatory.
If he was really smart, he would cut the CIA''s funding, and tell the Saudis to cut theirs, then the source of their operating funds will dry up. - Reply to this comment
- "You will have a hard time convicting President Bush without convicting the whole of the congress that was in session at the time, which voted him the power to invade Iraq". Posted by Speakinup21
Congress told him that if it was necessary, then he had the authorization, that is all, they did not force Bush, it was entirely his decision, and thus his responsibility. - Reply to this comment
- "No, they did not give the order, but, they supported it. So, by saying what your dummy brain just said, that to you, "It''''s OK for my party to support anything that goes on in the world, but when the world opinion shifts against it, then, I will defend them by saying, they did not give the order" Posted by poopnuts1111
Since they did not give the order, they need no defense. It is a simple application of law, they may have expressed support for a crime, but they did not commit it. Bush gave the order, so Bush is responsible, the buck stops there.
Just like you may express support for a bank robber, but as long as you are not the robber, it is not your crime. - Reply to this comment
- Most of the liberals will shy away when reminded of the facts that were happening. They forget so quickly that they themselves endorsed the President at the time.
Posted by Speakinup21 at 01:35 PM : Dec 02, 2008
I don''t know about endorse. But you have to give your president the benefit of the doubt. When it turned out the rationale for invasion was a fabrication, who can blame the Democrats for turning critical of the war? The Germans and French were right from the beginning. But we had to stand with Bush, at least, when information about what''s going on was still uncertain and incomplete and Bush still had some credibility. - Reply to this comment
- prometheus41 call 911 and report Bush''s unlawful order to the UN Police, maybe they''ll arrest him!
- Reply to this comment
No, the absence of U.N. Security Council authorization to invade Iraq EQUATES to an UNLAWFUL order.
Posted by prometheus41 at 01:29 PM : Dec 02, 2008
-----------
uhh, since when did the president answer to the UN? ...we are not the United Nation of America dum@ss, we do not need UN approval for jacksh*t!
whether or not the UN gave approval has nothing to do with whether is was a lawful order or not, the United states has EVERY right to protect its self based on the current information, just because "later" it was found not to be correct still didn''t mean his order was unlawful at the time! Saddam''s actions and refusal to allow inspectors helped contribute as much to the invasion as the bad intel/information Bush receieved and based his decision to invade!
I guess as long as Hitler didn''t attack the US we should of only fought the Japaneese during WWII, at what point and loss of life do we say enough to ruthless dictators? ...and who decides? The UN, France, Russia??? I think not!- Reply to this comment
- "The absence of wmd does NOT equate to unlawful order.
You made a huge leap there dude." Posted by speakinup21
Yes, it does. Bush posited their existence as the central pillar of his proof of a "clear and present danger" a prerequisite for ordering military hostilities.
Since they don''t exist, neither does his "clear and present" danger, and therefore his orders were illegal.
There is no leap at all.
Now if you know where the WMDs are, then help your boy out, otherwise I, along with many others will keep up our call for Bush to be brought up on war crimes and treason charges. - Reply to this comment
Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more.
