There were at least three terrorist in Iraq before the war: Saddam, Uday, & Qusay.
You're sure these 500 shells are no longer dangerous - OK - put your money where your mouth is - open one up and inhale deeply.

Bakerstreet

No Bush told us we invaded Iraq because of the danger to this country NOT because Saddam did not obey U N Resolutions. WE are NOT the enforcement agent for the UN. If Bush had said lets go to war to enforce U N resolution or to give the Iraqi people a chance to vote the answer would have been NO. That is NOT the reason Bush gave Congress or the American People to remove Saddam!

Fiesty

Those three had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and did not have the means to attack the United States!

Um, what UN resolution. There was no necessity in any other resolution thereafter. The UN has no authority over us. We were already parties in a war with Hussein, and we had a ceasefire agreement with him, and he didn't keep to it. Just because Clinton preferred getting a hummer than paying attention to it doesn't mean it wasn't an issue.

Bush gave many reasons to remove Saddam, you just want to home in on the ones that didn't pan out. You are even wrong about the reasons you cite. It was not that Hussein had this or that, it was that we had reason to believe that Hussein had them, and he refused to cooperate with any means of finding out for sure.

You can dance around and pretend the subject is different every time you post, but I don't think any third party is going to be convinced by your jig. The UN wasn't party to enforcement because they were being bribed. In the absence of real authority we decided to do the job.

You are trying desperately to spin the fact that you were wrong, but YOU WERE WRONG. You said that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that had the inspectors been able to do their jobs they would have found that. Now, you see you were wrong.

You want to shift it to "new" weapons, etc., but the main job of the inspections was to find out what happened to the armament he didn't have proof he destroyed. You claimed he didn't have any of it, now we find he did. Spin it how you like, but the fact remains this is just your brand of damage control.

Usama didn't have any ICBMs - yet he found 19 weak-mind ignoramuses to crash jet airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Are you disappointed that The Forty on Flight 93 were victorious in preventing that plane from reaching its target?

Wake-up and smell the mustard gas!

No Bush told us we invaded Iraq because of the danger to this country NOT because Saddam did not obey U N Resolutions.

You mean to say Bush, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and many more democrats. Please don't leave them out in the future.

Those three had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and did not have the means to attack the United States!

Nobody said they were part of Sept. 11. The point being made here is some guy in a cave managed to down two 100+ story buildings in the U.S. He didn't have missiles, and still managed to do damage.

There was no terrorism in Iraq before we deposed Saddam and then both internal and external groups began to operate as terrorists.

There were many terrorists in Iraq before the war, including al-zaqarwi. I have been documenting the translated documents on how Saddam had ongoing relationships with terrorist organizations. These are things you don't know because they don't fit your obsessive "hate Bush" agenda.

This declassified intelligence report does NOTHING to show that in 2003 Saddam was a threat and does not in any way change the conclusion of the U. S. Former Weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer in 2004 that Saddam had discontinued his WMD program just after the 1991 war and that he had NO ACTIVE Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons programs in 2003!

The above was the conclusion of OUR chief weapons inspector in 2004. “NO ACTIVE CHEMICAL. BIOLOGICAL or NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM in 2003”!!!!!!!!!!! When Bush and Cheney said we had to attack Iraq it was because we were in danger-- Remember the mushroom clouds!!! It was NOT because he violated U N resolutions or because he was an evil person or because we wanted to allow the Iraqi people to vote. All the reasons except that WE WERE IN DANGER came AFTER we invaded Iraq. The reasons kept changing as each reason did not pan out!

Colonel, the Duelfer report noted how Saddam maintained the ability to restart a weapons program the moment the sanctions were lifted, which they very well may have. So either Iraq would be under permanent sanctions (which was a major reason for the hatred against the US and also the UN in Iraq and in the greater Arab world. Yes, Iraqis hated the UN too, hence the lack of sadness for the truck bombing of UN headquarter in Baghdad in August 2003), or the sanctions would be lifted and Saddam would reconstitute the weapons program. This would amount to generational baysitting.

Unfortunately, The Bush administration turned this venture into a nation-building exercise, so now it is turning into generational babysitting anyway. I say better a 3 week war every 3 years to remove the new troublemakers in power than a permanent occupation of Iraq.

Island Dog - What big teeth you have. Nice "bite"
COL Gene is yelling because you are correct.

Bushs' speech (Oct. 2002) says plenty about the 12 UN resolutions, the threat Saddam was to the other countrys in the middle east, his aid to terrorist, etc. He also talks about freedom for the people of Iraqi.
The liberals were jumping up & down blabbing about the war.

I think we are not aggressive enough in this war.

*tap tap* is this thing on?

This story is disturbing and if anything adds to my lack of confidence in what our government and then what the press reports. I feel that at times our government feeds info to the press to buttress what they want us to accept as either justification for what Bush has done or is about to do!

SANTORUM IS FINISHED! with that stupid stunt

Hes trailing 18 points in the latest PA polls.

Thats the fate that awaits all supporters of this illegal invasion

>Reply By: BakerStreet Posted: Friday, June 23, 2006
We had no beef with Hussein during the Reagan period, and he wasn't under the obligation to declare these shells and destroy
>them then. It was under Clinton's administration that enforcement of the ceasefire wasn't held to, and that these shells
>were stored away and hidden from inspectors. SO, again...

>CLINTON'S MISGUIDED POLICIES ALLOWED SADDAAM HUSSIEN TO STOCKPILE WMDs FOR YEARS WHILE INSPECTIONS WERE THRWARTED!!!



your ILK is so PREDICTABLE.

yesterday I stubbed my toe ... clintons fault
just now my wife screamed at me ... clintons fault
the local A&P doesnt have apple juice ... clintons fault
santorum is a fool ... product of a clinton generation
liberman is a fool ... product of a clinton generation
my son smokes pot ... clintons fault
the weather is 89 today ... its that damn clinton

you guys are a broken record ...
I also love how you convienently skipped GB 1 ... then again there was no one between Reagan and Clinton ... was there?
you are ridiculous ... its not even funny anymore ... its past sad

My ilk doesn't skip Ghwb, thanks. Your ilk is pretty predictable, after blame bush, blame bush, I'm thinking that #28 is projecting your own lunacy on me.

The fact is we've been told over and over that there were no WMDs in Iraq. For 10 years anyone who proposed military efforts to remove Hussein based upon the fact that he wasn't on the level about his WMDs was a warmonger. Clinton was "wise" enough to know that it was all hype.

Well, now we see that while he was sitting there getting a hummer in the mid-90's, there WERE WMDs stored that Hussein was NOT declaring, and the weapons inspectors WEREN'T finding. So, all the weapons inspectors that decided to play politics and declared that Hussein destroyed them all were liars.

Don't try to project your 'blame bush' syndrome on me. Your adolescent, pop politics crap isn't nearly genuine enough to start pretending that. When you get your perspective from something beyond DU propaganda and conspiracy theory sites, we'll talk.

Hussein wasnt removed because he posed a threat ... he was after "our man" when we needed him.
he was removed to further an agenda ... already documented by the Wolfkowitz's of our time the PNAC agenda.

We've had two inspector (Kelly and the other guy whose name escapes me) since the fall of Hussein and they have both
reported the same thing ... what the MILLIONS of people who marched (WORLD WIDE) against this nonsense knew

1. it was not about weapons
2. it was not completely about oil
3. it was not completely about israel
4. it was not completely about the military industrial complex
5. it was for a combination of factors ... which drew in people with a vested stake in furthering hegemony

And furthermore calling me a democrat is as much of an insult as calling me a republican. these two are one and the same
serving the same masters ... and that master is not the American People.

I didn't call you a Dem, I know you are even flakier than they are, no worries. Your rhetoric might as well be cut-and-paste from the DU forums, though, where "PNAC agenda" is about a common as the word "the".