HOW MANY IRAQI BABIES HAS BUSH KlLLED WITH HIS BOGUS WMD WAR OF CHOICE BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE?
466568
The Iraqi women all shaved their heads in protest of George Bush's occupation of Iraq. they said that they were not being represented properly in the world. So in other words the American Fox news media and Pat Robertson's 700 Club are just another pack of lies from Conservatives. It's nothing new, since if their mouths are moving, they are lying. Deport the Conservatives to Iraq to fight their own wars. Free America from the Tyrants.
1090955
I have no doubt that in fact he is telling the truth.\nIt is FACT that Saddam indeed had WMD's and people who say he didn't have them are ignoring the facts,and are generally just anti-Bush liberals..cranking out more spin and lies to villianize Bush.\nAny country that assists this type of thing should be held accountable for their actions.\nUntil murderous dictators and terrorist groups have no place to hide they will exist.
1024063
No - the President did not blunder - he only lied.\nHis intention was to invade Iraq regardless of WMD - the reasons put out were just a smoke screen of lies.
249901
Lies? I see your opinions are unfettered by a little thing called facts.\n\nIraq: WMD's were NOT A LIE. While experience does not bear it out, many countries' intelligence pointed to large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons (he used them on his own people!) and the great potentiality that he was developing nuclear weapons. Just because what many countries (not just the US) believed hasn't been proven doesn't make it a lie.\n\nSocial Security: Just because something doesn't roll out smoothly doesn't mean anyone lied. Where's the deliberate deception?!?\n\nHurricane Katrina: Bush said he hadn't been told the levees had failed. We see footage of a meeting before the storm hit telling him the levees would likely fail. Lefties all leap to their feet screaming He Lied Again! Oh, what comes out today? More footage, this time of Blanco telling Bush the levees are holding AFTER THEY HAD ALREADY FAILED. Gee, I guess he didn't lie again.\n\nFace it, all the left is doing is grasping onto anything as it occurs in an attempt to discredit the administration in advance of mid term elections. By actually believing this crap you are simply a pawn to the left. try something new, try logic.
288652
I wonder who really believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction(WMD). Supposedly, the americans went to war to prevent Saddam from giving WMD to terrorists.  No WMD has been found, meaning either the iraqis never had WMD or somehow, the terrorists got the weapons. The american population was misled, not the government.  The government always had the reports saying Iraq had no WMD.  At the same time, there was a conflict about nuclear programs with North Korea.  Here they do have nuclear weapons.  Weird I don't see american troops in N. Korea.  So, was it for oil?  Definitely YES.\n\nIs it worth it?  Oil price has never been so high because constant supply from Iraq is not available.  Ask the families of the soldiers who died in that war, if it is worth it?  Ask the families of everyone else (workers or diplomats) who has died or been kidnapped if it is worth it?  Ask the American people who pay billions as tax money to support the military, if it is worth it?  \n\nThis war has been a complete failure.  There is only one reason:  The war was not necessary.
913673
If it was a lie, it was not just Bush! Check out this quote from the liberal queen of flip-flop, Nancy Pelosi:\n\n"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
718679
LIE NUMBER 1) Simply stated, there is no doubt that\nSaddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.\n(Dick Cheney)\n<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html>\n\nLIE NUMBER 2) Right NOW, Iraq is expanding and\nimproving facilities that were used for the production\nof biological weapons. (George W. Bush)\n<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html>\n\nLIE NUMBER 3):If he declares he has none, then we will\nknow that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the\nworld.(Ari Fleischer)\n<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021202-6.html>\n\nLIE NUMBER 4):We know for a FACT that there are\nweapons there.(Ari Fleischer)\n<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030109-8.html>\n\nLIE  NUMBER 5):Our intelligence officials estimate\nthat Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as\nmuch as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.\n(George  W.\nBush)<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-\n19.html>\nHere is 25 reasons for ya. \n\n25 REASONS TO FEEL BAD ABOUT BUSH\n\nEconomic Indicators\n\n1. The unemployment rate averaged 4.1 percent in 2000 and reached a 30 year low of 3.9 percent in October 2000. Today, the unemployment rate has increased to 5.7 percent. There are presently 8.1 million unemployed Americans, an increase of 2.5 million compared to 2000\n\n2. The number of Americans experiencing long-term unemployment-over 27 weeks-has almost doubled in the last year.\n\n3. Job creation has reversed. In 2000, the year before President Bush took office, the economy created 1.7 million new jobs. This trend has been reversed, and the economy has lost almost 1.5 million jobs since President Bush took office in January 2001.\n\n4. Poverty is increasing. After decreasing for eight straight years and reaching its lowest level in 25 years, the poverty rate increased from 11.3 percent in 2000 to 11.7 percent in 2001. In the first year of the Bush administration, 1.3 million Americans slipped back into poverty, with a total of 32.9 million Americans living in poverty in 2001.\n\n5. Incomes are falling. After increasing every year since 1991, and reaching an all time high in 2000, median household income in the United States fell 2.2 percent in 2001. Median incomes fell for households in every income group in the country except for those earning over $150,000.\n\n6. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are filing for bankruptcy. Almost 800,000 Americans filed for bankruptcy in the first half of 2002. In the second quarter of 2002, over 400,000 bankruptcies were filed in the United States, an all-time record.\n\n7. Mortgage foreclosures are at record highs. In the second quarter of 2002, 1.23 percent of home loans were in the foreclosure process, a record level. Over this same time period, almost 5 percent of mortgage loans were delinquent, up almost 20 percent from the average delinquency rate in 2000.\n\n8. The federal budget deficit is increasing. In 2000, the year before President Bush took office, the federal budget, excluding Social Security, showed a surplus of $86.6 billion. The most recent figures from the Congressional Budget Office indicate that for FY 2002, the federal budget, excluding Social Security, will show a deficit of $314 billion.\n\n9. This represents the largest budget decline in U.S. history, and it is the third-largest on-budget deficit in history, exceeded in size only by the deficits of 1991 and 1992 under the first President Bush. Health Care Indicators\n\n10.The number of Americans without health insurance is increasing. Between 1999 and 2000, the number of uninsured Americans fell by 600,000.\n\n11. But this trend has reversed itself and in 2001 the number of uninsured Americans increased by 1.4 million.\n\n12. Over 41 million Americans — 14.6 percent of the population — had no health insurance coverage in 2001.\n\n13. The percentage of small businesses offering insurance to their employees
1185959
Anybody with a functioning brain is opposed to the war in Iraq unless it's for personal profit. The deaths of thousands of innocent people count for nothing.\nBush has done the impossible , he has turned a bad situation under Saddam into a catastrophe for the whole world
1057088
I love the ignorant allegations Bush lied about WMD - \n\nShall we review for the little socialist wannabe lemmings and show how stupid just that one statement sounds - \n\nFound in Iraq:\n\n* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium\n* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents\n* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)\n* Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas\n* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency\n\nIf Bush lied to America - who did these liberals lie to?  \n\nDoes anyone recall Bush running around texas claiming Saddam had WMD since some of these statements go back to 1998?\n\n\n"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."\n-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003\n\n"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."\n-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002\n\n"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."\n-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002\n\n"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"\n-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002\n\n"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."\n-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002\n\n"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."\n-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002\n\n"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."\n-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002\n\n"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."\n-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002\n\n"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."\n-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002\n\n"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."\n-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002\n\n"We b
1171720
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqdubabiespix.html#DUBABIESPIX\ncheck out this entire site to learn more. of course it is not but remember this is what evil people do.
78454
Bush already acknowledged that the WMD info was flawed, but we have removed a dictator that had killed many more of his own citizens than all of our bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan have even come close to killing.\n\nIs that justification? Perhaps, perhaps not. Still, Pesident Bush and this war have succeeded in doing one thing that has been left unanswered for years: for many years Islamic extremists have pointed to America as being a "paper tiger"; lots of growling, but no teeth or claws. We have now shown our teeth, our claws, and we have a very mean bite. \n\nI'm not saying this to debate right or wrong, just making a statement of fact.
1168337
I don't see how anyone who knows the facts surrounding the Iraq war and can think clearly could possibly support him. Do the pro-Bush people realize that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11? Being aware of pertinent facts like that might help you think more clearly about President Bush. \n\nThe issue is not about supporting the troops. The issue is whether the foreign policy is right. I believe it is not and that it is appropriate and necessary to acknowledge that fact. I think that the present state of affairs speaks for itself - the Bush administration is arrogant and incompetent. \n\nAnd folks, when you talk about freedom of oppressed people, that was not the reason we started this, remember - it was about weapons of mass destruction and terrorism.
1174338
LIES? what LIES?  All we hear from those that appose the war is lies were told.  So, we don't need to be there eh??  What about ousting Sadaam, who is KNOWN world wide to be an evil dictator hell bent on murdering and torturing his own people.  He's OUT.  What about women and children allowed now to go to school, to get proper health care (provided by the US) electricy is up and running, libraries are open, andWhen some claim President Bush shouldn’t have started this war, state the following…\n\nFDR…led us into WWII.  Germany never attacked us: Japan did.\nFrom 1941 –1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.\nTruman….finished that was and started one in Korea.  North Korea never attacked us.\nFrom 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, and average of 18,334 per year.\n\nJFK..started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.  Vietnam never attacked us.\nJohnson…turned Vietnam into a quagmire.  From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, and average of 5,800 per year.\nClinton…went to war in Bosnia without UN of French consent.  Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered OSB’s head on a platter three times by the Sudan and did nothing.\nOSB has attacked us on multiple occasions.\n\nIn the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has:\nLiberated two countries\nCrushed the Taliban\nCrippled al-Qaida\nPut nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot.\nCaptured a terrorist who slaughtered over 300,000 of his own people.\n\nThe Dems are complaining and whining about how long the war is taking, but…\nIt took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian Compound.  That was a 51-day operation.\nWe’ve been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.\n\nIt took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after he drove his Olds off the Chappaquiddick Bridge.\n\nIt took less time to take Iraq than it took to count, and then re-recount the votes in Florida.\n\nOur Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB.  Military moral is high.\n\nThe biased media and Bush Hating Libs are hoping we are too ignorant to realize facts.   For those of you who can't see for your hatred, why don't you just TRY and learn FACTS before you spew your hatred.\n\nAnd PLEASE, don't tell me that 9/11 is a Gvt Coverup, you sound soooo retarded when y'all say that.  YOU know and I know it was Muslim/Islamic extremists bent on killing US all, that INCLUDES you lefty whining liberals
151901
Here is an article from CNN.com discussing this topic:\n\nhttp://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/\n\n(FindLaw) -- President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake -- acts of war against another nation. \n\nNow it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away -- unless, perhaps, they start another war. \n\nThat seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking. \n\nPresidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation. \n\nFrankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues. \n\nPresident Bush's statements on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction\nReaders may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled. \n\nBush's statements, in chronological order, were: \n\n"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." \n\nUnited Nations address, September 12, 2002 \n\n"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons." \n\n"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." \n\nRadio address, October 5, 2002 \n\n"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." \n\n"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." \n\n"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States." \n\n"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." \n\nCincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002 \n\n"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." \n\nState of the Union Address, January 28, 200
472915
Yes, it's a war.  You really want to know how and why it began?  Okay, here's a history lesson:\n Many people say it was President Bush who started this war, or that he's continuing his father's work. What started Desert Storm? Iraq invaded Kuwait, a U.S. ally. Kuwait in turn begged the UN for some help in eradicating the threat. The U.S. answered the call. When we pulled out, it was under the condition that Hussein would submit to occasional inspections to be sure that he did not have nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons capabilities. For a little over a decade, we were officially at a stasis. Unofficially though, we were firing on Iraq the whole time. Most of it was retaliation, for Iraqi approved attacks on Americans, or for the mass genocide we were well aware of. Some of it was to rid Iraq of Hussein, for both horrific acts. \nThen September 11th happened, and our policy had to change. The CIA (and other InterPol agencies that I can't recall right now) began receiving intelligence reports of suspicious activity in the Middle East, namely in Iraq. As a result, Hussein was warned that the UN needed to inspect for WMD's. He refused to let them in, and he threatened to retaliate if they tried. Before I continue, why would he do that? Think about it. Moving on. President Bush gave Hussein an ultimatum: "Let them in, or we attack!" Hussein said, yeah right, believe it when I see it. President Bush said, okay, if that's the way you want it...and he went to Congress and asked for their approval to attack Iraq. Once Congress was given the evidence, they voted with an overwhelming majority to go ahead with the attack. Then Bush went to the UN, and asked for their unity in order to rid the world of what was deemed a huge threat. Of course, they refused, all except Great Britain.\nSix weeks after the first inspection was refused, we attacked. SIX WEEKS. If Saddam had something to hide, is six weeks long enough to do so?\nGoing back just a little. The attack on Iraq had already been approved by the Clinton administration. Let me repeat that: ALREADY APPROVED, before Bush. President Bush asking Congress for approval on something they had already passed was only a formality, which he did not have to do.\nOkay, so what's the current situation in Iraq? No one knows, except those that are there. Again, NO ONE KNOWS!  I am a military spouse, so we have friends that are there now, and who have already served in the past couple of years. Some say it's awful, others say we're doing good. How do the Iraqis feel? Well, how many voted in their election? Their first REAL election in over twenty years. If the Iraqis were truly against us, wouldn't they be attacking U.S. soldiers? Not the insurgents, but regular Iraqi citizens?  Wouldn't more be aiding the insurgents? The fact that Iraqis are turning in the insurgents, saving many lives, says something doesn't it? \nOkay, as for the claim that this war is all about oil, it's half-right. Yes, it really is about oil...but not in the way that the people who make that claim think. I've had reports from people in Iraq that Saddam lived in opulence you can't even imagine. Gold and marble and ivory everywhere, 20 room palaces (note, I said PALACES, plural. He had several.)...meanwhile, down the road, maybe a mile away, there was a ten person family living in a one room shack. In absolute and total squalor. The U.S.'s homeless live a lot better, trust me. Hussein was starving his own people, making them go without electricity...and using the money from the oil to build his palaces. Yeah, that's fair. Sure. So we go in, and we seize the oil factories to turn over to the emerging Iraqi government. The Army is working to rebuild schools that have been damaged (many were damaged WAY before the U.S. occupied the country), repairing power lines, restoring clean drinking water...\nSo there you go.  Now you know.  I don't beli
698880
!.) Bush cherry picked WMD evidence\n2.) wrong about a iraq-911 connection\n3.) wrong about a iraq-al-qadea connection\n4.) slow in attacking al-qadea before 911\n5.) al-qadea is now more powerful before 911\n6.) and of course Iraq is a freakin' shitbox
1185056
Bush. 6000 (innocent) Iraqis dead.