Except in 2002, when he said this at his State of the Union speech.
So was this speech in January of 2002 before or after “Leftists in Congress, such as Hillary” talked up WMDs? And remember, the Authorization for Military Force or Iraq Resolution wasn’t passed in Congress until October of 2002.
I also like this op piece from Bob Woodward.
How indeed? Interventionism and empire building. The gift that keeps on giving nearly 20 years later. Gotta love it.
They HAD desired to develop those things and as far as anyone in our government knew had continued to try. They HAD used poisonous gas against Iraqis. They HAD kicked out inspectors and Saddam himself played up the whole thing for creds on the so-called Muslim street.
Those were entirely accurate statements given the Intel that existed at the time. The latter were historically accurate.
Very True! What people don’t realize only because they bought the narrative of Bush’s "preemptive strike, was that Saddam violated international law and thus had he not done so he may very well still be alive today and still in power. (of course who knows about still being in power part) but when studying this carefully, he brought the entire US invasion part on himself.
All true and not disputing that. However, he and his admin did play up the “threat” to the American public to justify our invasion. It’s why the narrative changed from WMDs to “spreading democracy” once those weapons weren’t anywhere to be found. Let’s leave rewriting history to the leftwits, shall we?
This thread here is 20 metric tonnes of stupid.
But W had more than just WMDs he was willing to reference.
The Left?
All through the Clinton administration the Iraqi regime had been ramping up on all the other things besides WMDs that gave what waseventually used as the legal pretext for the second Gulf War and, frankly, the base of the Democrats seems to have hardly cared about any of that.
Given that any mention of all this while W was President would be seen as allowing that Clinton had let things get out of control, or whatever, I would say that is a big part of why the Democrats apparently needed their base to be made to feel somehow threatened, or feel threatened for other by proxy (being upset by proxy seems to be a talent for Leftists), as if those WMDs might be used.
That’s where I get them talking WMDs up. It was basically all they had because most everything else they’d already not been upset about, most everything else the Clinton administration seemed to have done nothing about … where at least Clinton had something to say on WMDs.
And of course if it was all they had it’s all they remember anyone ever having.
The left by and large “love” any group of people that have one of two very important traits - nonwhite and non-Christian. The overwhelming majority of Muslims posses both of those traits.
Looking through this thread, the OP made one post which was the OP. Then cut and ran. 
I feel good about this first part you wrote. Israel is a strong country. To be so interwoven with Israel seems to be a good thing. I hope the good relationship continues. Inshallah.
Judging by the content of some of the posts in the thread i dont think we have to worry much about a bunch of worshiping of the military on this board.
At the same time as i respect the engineers, scientist and philosophers on this board when they post in their respective fields, it is reasonable to expect the same kind of respect and weight given to the military when they post in their area of expertise.
Long after.
His “mother of all battles” bluff and shell game with the inspectors along with the refusal to allow “inspections” at his dozens and dozens of palaces all the while threatening the use of WMD’s against the US or anyone else who attempted to remove him were his undoing.
Never run a bluff if someone is willing to call you on it.
So did Saddam, repeatedly.
You feel good about members of Congress who have dual allegiances? That seems odd. You realize these are the very same people setting the rules we have to live by, right?
And he should have been handled the same way Reagan handled Gadaffi. There’s certainly a huge difference between attempting to disarm Iraq via sanctions and deposing the government of a soveriegn country because we decided that government was no longer playing ball with us. And what were we left with? How did that serve US interests exactly? Is the region any more stable than it was before the invasion?
Israel does not scare me like it does some. If Israel becomes an enemy, those with dual citizenship should leave the government. Till then, I like our strong alliance with Israel.
What dual allegiances?
