Time for liberals to show their hypocrisy- NY Times article on WMDs found in Iraq

Everyone knows the chemical weapons existed. Saddam used them against Iran and the Kurds. No one without extreme bias believed they had nuclear weapons, which was the justification for invasion in 2003. Seems the continuing evidence of that invasion being a blunder is that there were remnants of these weapons that survived our occupation and may have fallen into enemy hands. [Citation Needed]

I don't believe this new narrative. A little too convenient. Seems more likely these weapons would have come from Syria.

That said, I do believe JSOC and their allied equivalents need to be on the ground fighting ISIS and leading the Peshmerga. I also believe that to a limited extent they are.

Anyone who makes this a partisan issue is an idiot. What does Elizabeth Warren have to do with any of this?

If you would actually, you know, READ the article, you'd see that they are talking about chemical weapons that were built before 1991 - the *first* Gulf War. This has absolutely nothing to do with any of the stuff Bush or Cheney thought would be there.

Why do you feel like you need to twist articles like this? The article is largely about how our servicemen and women are suffering health issues resulting from helping with disposal of these old caches. Yet, you turn it into something to lie about and score political points over??? Why do you hate our servicepeople so much? Where does your hate for the America they served come from?

Angry Teabaggers - LOL

OP, you have to be the last guy in the entire world who thinks there was any debate over chemical weapons in Iraq. So confused, yet so enraged.

Liberals have always said that there were aging stocks of chemical weapons left over from the 1980s and early 1990s in Iraq, which the Reagan and Bush I administrations helped them get, as the article maintains.

I realize it's way too much to ask of a microcephalous drone like yourself to actually READ the stuff you cite,... and that even if you HAD bothered to read it, your tiny mind would still be far too feeble to grasp the fact that it actually demonstrates exactly the OPPOSITE of your pea-brained claims, but can't you try and do the right thing, just once in your life, anyway?

How does a guy as profoundly stupid as yourself keep his head from collapsing under atmospheric pressure?

Do you stuff it with newspaper?

We know you can't read, we know you can't think, we know that you constitute nothing but a drain on decent society in every possible way,...

Couldn't you just face up to the facts, and kill yourself already?

Just think: with that one act, you would finally, this one single time, make an actual contribution to humanity.

Do it today.

Your thread title should have been: "Time for me to show my idiocy"

Saddam was not a threat to the United States. The Bush administration was looking for any excuse to invade Iraq and chemical weapons (supplied by the CIA) were a convenient excuse.

OK, retard. If I'm the DEA and I hear that a known drug smuggler is moving a shipment of fresh cocaine tonight and I bust him and find that he is actually shipping old heroin, I'm still in the right. The fact that Bush was right just rubs America-haters wrong.

You Are What You Is wrote:

If you would actually, you know, READ the article, you'd see that they are talking about chemical weapons that were built before 1991 - the *first* Gulf War. This has absolutely nothing to do with any of the stuff Bush or Cheney thought would be there.

Why do you feel like you need to twist articles like this? The article is largely about how our servicemen and women are suffering health issues resulting from helping with disposal of these old caches. Yet, you turn it into something to lie about and score political points over??? Why do you hate our servicepeople so much? Where does your hate for the America they served come from?

Garman wrote:

Saddam was not a threat to the United States. The Bush administration was looking for any excuse to invade Iraq and chemical weapons (supplied by the CIA) were a convenient excuse.

LOL - Angrey TeaBaggers

Meh...Bush and his cronies' case for war was more about weapons PROGRAMS, mobile weapons labs, etc. None of that was true. The programs had ceased.

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

.etc...

No one goes to war over a few thousand aging 155 mm howitzer shells.

There was not an imminent threat to US security when we ordered to invade Iraq in March 2003.

There were inspectors there.

Saddam was not making any threats.

We rushed in.

What was the hurry?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/conservatives-continue-get-iraqi-wmd-story-wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPJCPcYCupY

Bush lied.

Americans died.

[quote]L L wrote:

There was not an imminent threat to US security when we ordered to invade Iraq in March 2003.

There were inspectors there.

Saddam was not making any threats.

We rushed in.

What was the hurry?

Are you that clueless? Saddam had violated continually numerous UN sanctions.

Seems like convenient ploy to segue into sending ground troops back into Iraq in larger numbers.

"Liberals Hate America," so you think the Iraq War is worth everything it's brought us and the world and that Bush was "vindicated?" How delusional can you be.

Many of us realized long ago that Che Guevara was a bloodthirsty goon, so don't even try and play that one.

It's hard to think a sentient creature could look at the behavior of what passes for Republicans these days and claim that it's "liberals" who "hate America."

Chewbaccca wrote:

Saddam had violated continually numerous UN sanctions.

What does this sentence mean?

Saddam had UN violations and they imposed sanctions on Iraq.

He was a bad guy.

That's not an impetus to declare war and invade them.

And it's not the reason they gave to invade.

I strongly disagreed with John Kerry and Hilary Clinton's vote to invade.

I don't understand what you're getting at. First you say liberals argued there were no WMDs, then you name four Dems who said there were? Dems are typically considered to be liberals, except for Obama.

God! conservatives and Bush lovers are so f'ing stupid! The NYtimes article clearly indicates that it was the Pentagon that covered up these discoveries- and that means Defense Sec'y Rumsfeld knew! Don't these Bush loving idiots have any clue that if these rusting and degraded chemical weapon finds actually vindicated Bush/Cheney's rush to war that we would have heard about it by now? or in 2004 when they first turned up?

F'ing idiots!!! Try critical thinking some time!