Legacy of George Walker Bush

[eagle]

]Clinton speaks for himself.

obviously Clinton does everything he can to make Clinton look good, but at least *he* is a primary source... more interesting than twice-digested spin.

by most (fact-based) accounts i've read, Dubya didn't take al Qaeda any more seriously than Clinton... until they flew airplanes into buildings.

Correct. Bush, too, had ample opportunity to do something during his first seven presidential months and failed to do so. After 9.11.01, he changed his posture which is what all the fuss now is about. The problem now is many of the Clinton people are coming back to roost in the new administration which, as you might imagine, concerns me.

Changed his posture, Dam he blew Baghdad to Sh*t but whoops wrong country :roll: It even sounds twisted to hear Obama say Afgahnistan is the place to go when It seemed so likely the right place 6 years ago.

[Guest FLGlenn]

If we agree that all politicians are not honest then the differences between them becomes a moot point.

that's a flimsy argument at best.

but it's obvious that your real purpose was to see your name all down the forum list, so i doubt you care if the argument works anyway.

It must of worked, it received a response from you. In addition its hardly an argument, more of an observation. Thanks for letting me know what my purpose is lol!

[zeusbheld]

If we agree that all politicians are not honest then the differences between them becomes a moot point.

that's a flimsy argument at best.

but it's obvious that your real purpose was to see your name all down the forum list, so i doubt you care if the argument works anyway.

It must of worked, it received a response from you. In addition its hardly an argument, more of an observation. Thanks for letting me know what my purpose is lol!

first, learn the difference between an "observation" and an "opinion." (hint: you offered an opinion).

next, if your goal was merely to get a response, maybe you're setting the bar too low?

[zeusbheld]

]Clinton speaks for himself.

obviously Clinton does everything he can to make Clinton look good, but at least *he* is a primary source... more interesting than twice-digested spin.

by most (fact-based) accounts i've read, Dubya didn't take al Qaeda any more seriously than Clinton... until they flew airplanes into buildings.

Correct. Bush, too, had ample opportunity to do something during his first seven presidential months and failed to do so. After 9.11.01, he changed his posture which is what all the fuss now is about. The problem now is many of the Clinton people are coming back to roost in the new administration which, as you might imagine, concerns me.

two things to bear in mind:

1) 9/11 has already happened; the game-changing black swan has already landed.

2) Gates is continuing at secretary of defense. had Gates been in there instead of Rummy, Bush might not have screwed it all up.

[Guest FLGlenn]

If we agree that all politicians are not honest then the differences between them becomes a moot point.

that's a flimsy argument at best.

but it's obvious that your real purpose was to see your name all down the forum list, so i doubt you care if the argument works anyway.

It must of worked, it received a response from you. In addition its hardly an argument, more of an observation. Thanks for letting me know what my purpose is lol!

first, learn the difference between an "observation" and an "opinion." (hint: you offered an opinion).

I'll call you Webster from now on (hint: I made an observation).

next, if your goal was merely to get a response, maybe you're setting the bar too low?

I am setting the bar too low (hint: you responded).

[zeusbheld]

If we agree that all politicians are not honest then the differences between them becomes a moot point.

that's a flimsy argument at best.

but it's obvious that your real purpose was to see your name all down the forum list, so i doubt you care if the argument works anyway.

It must of worked, it received a response from you. In addition its hardly an argument, more of an observation. Thanks for letting me know what my purpose is lol!

first, learn the difference between an "observation" and an "opinion." (hint: you offered an opinion).

I'll call you Webster from now on (hint: I made an observation).

still not an observation. weakiepiedia is your friend, mmmmmkay?

next, if your goal was merely to get a response, maybe you're setting the bar too low?

I am setting the bar too low (hint: you responded).

ok the quote box thing:

if you're gonna respond line by line you have to make sure you don't make it look like you're changing what someone else said. that's one of the few big no-nos on this forum.

here's how you do a quote box:

[ q u o t e ] whatever they said goes in here [ / q u o t e ]

like that, except you take the spaces out. if you hit "reply" you will see what i mean.

[beej]

]Clinton speaks for himself.

obviously Clinton does everything he can to make Clinton look good, but at least *he* is a primary source... more interesting than twice-digested spin.

by most (fact-based) accounts i've read, Dubya didn't take al Qaeda any more seriously than Clinton... until they flew airplanes into buildings.

Correct. Bush, too, had ample opportunity to do something during his first seven presidential months and failed to do so. After 9.11.01, he changed his posture which is what all the fuss now is about. The problem now is many of the Clinton people are coming back to roost in the new administration which, as you might imagine, concerns me.

Oh my god, what no more ignorant wars?

[Guest FLGlenn]

We've been waiting for a footprint in SW Asia for years and we finally have an excuse to be there. Accept it and let it go. Wasn't WWI the "war to end all wars"...LOL!

[zeusbheld]

War is part of the human condition. Get used to it and stop crying about it like a pre-teen who just got dumped by her first crush.

WAR isn't going away.

it isn't going away, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing to cry over it, although preferably with at least slightly more dignity than a pre-teen crush.

[Guest FLGlenn]

War is part of the human condition. Get used to it and stop crying about it like a pre-teen who just got dumped by her first crush.

WAR isn't going away.

it isn't going away, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing to cry over it, although preferably with at least slightly more dignity than a pre-teen crush.

Go ahead and cry...like when your mom took down the Ben Stiller posters from your bedroom walls and told you to grow up! LOL!

[zeusbheld]

War is part of the human condition. Get used to it and stop crying about it like a pre-teen who just got dumped by her first crush.

WAR isn't going away.

it isn't going away, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing to cry over it, although preferably with at least slightly more dignity than a pre-teen crush.

Go ahead and cry...like when your mom took down the Ben Stiller posters from your bedroom walls and told you to grow up! LOL!

apparently your mom hasn't told you to grow up yet. maybe she lets you do what you want because feels guilty for not being able to out-run her brothers.

[vbroker]

]Clinton speaks for himself.

obviously Clinton does everything he can to make Clinton look good, but at least *he* is a primary source... more interesting than twice-digested spin.

by most (fact-based) accounts i've read, Dubya didn't take al Qaeda any more seriously than Clinton... until they flew airplanes into buildings.

Correct. Bush, too, had ample opportunity to do something during his first seven presidential months and failed to do so. After 9.11.01, he changed his posture which is what all the fuss now is about. The problem now is many of the Clinton people are coming back to roost in the new administration which, as you might imagine, concerns me.

Changed his posture, Dam he blew Baghdad to Sh*t but whoops wrong country :roll: It even sounds twisted to hear Obama say Afgahnistan is the place to go when It seemed so likely the right place 6 years ago.

I'm going to speculate and lay this tired argument to rest once and for all.

Had Bush NOT gone into Iraq and concentrated solely on Afghanistan a whole separate can of worms emerges. Aside from the explosive Pakistan issue possibly exploding, this course would have allowed Hussein to continue to persecute his population, fund Palestinian homicide bombers and generally wreak as much havoc as he liked to stir up the witch's stew across the greater Middle East under the new circumstances. Not to mention the U.S. would still be enforcing a no fly zone to protect the Kurds Hussein enjoyed gassing every now and then. Aside from having no idea how history would have played out had this course been chosen, one thing is for **** sure: Liberals would have used their media dominance to attack this president and this country. I can see the articles and op ed pieces:

"That lying f*ck Bush said he'd 'take the fight to the terrorists.' Can't an argument be made that Saddam Hussein is the worst kind of terrorist in the Middle East? Why is this moron paying a billion dollars a day in taxpayer cash funding a no fly zone? Shouldn't he finish the job his stupid father started and should have finished himself in a post 9.11 world? Are we supposed to sit back, watch and listen to UN inspectors play a cat/mouse game while Hussein's nuclear engineers march towrd a possible nuclear bomb and more chemical weapons ad infinitum?"

"The U.S. is known around the world as the arbiter of democracy. This president has squandered that image because of his refusal to deal with the elephant in the room. Saddam Hussein is now believed to be harboring some of al Qaeda's worst terrorists. Mr. Hussein has shown in the past to have to no relationship with al Qaeda or bin Laden. Recent intelligence suggests in a new world order, it's become in Hussein's interest to stick it to U.S. any way he can. Like the enemy of my enemy is now my friend. This president will go down in history as the worst because when he had the opportunity, he didn't take out the Hussein regime."

And so on. George Bush will go down in history as an imperfect yet principled president. He did the best he could given an emerging threat that exploded onto the scene on 9.11.01.

Liberals hate the U.S. and what it stands for. Liberals hate capitalism and free trade because it frees the enslaved from oppressive government regulations. Liberals lie through their teeth to achieve their own despicable ends. Liberals are bigoted and racist scum.

Merry Christmas.

[CiaranM]

And so on. George Bush will go down in history as an imperfect yet principled president. He did the best he could given an emerging threat that exploded onto the scene on 9.11.01.

Liberals hate the U.S. and what it stands for. Liberals hate capitalism and free trade because it frees the enslaved from oppressive government regulations. Liberals lie through their teeth to achieve their own despicable ends. Liberals are bigoted and racist scum.

Merry Christmas.

u r a f**kwit of the highest order !!

[vbroker]

And so on. George Bush will go down in history as an imperfect yet principled president. He did the best he could given an emerging threat that exploded onto the scene on 9.11.01.

Liberals hate the U.S. and what it stands for. Liberals hate capitalism and free trade because it frees the enslaved from oppressive government regulations. Liberals lie through their teeth to achieve their own despicable ends. Liberals are bigoted and racist scum.

Merry Christmas.

u r a f**kwit of the highest order !!

I am so far beyond you it's hilarious. Have another drink.

[beej]

And so on. George Bush will go down in history as an imperfect yet principled president. He did the best he could given an emerging threat that exploded onto the scene on 9.11.01.

Liberals hate the U.S. and what it stands for. Liberals hate capitalism and free trade because it frees the enslaved from oppressive government regulations. Liberals lie through their teeth to achieve their own despicable ends. Liberals are bigoted and racist scum.

Merry Christmas.

u r a f**kwit of the highest order !!

I am so far beyond you it's hilarious.

What in the **** wit stakes?

[eagle]

]Clinton speaks for himself.

obviously Clinton does everything he can to make Clinton look good, but at least *he* is a primary source... more interesting than twice-digested spin.

by most (fact-based) accounts i've read, Dubya didn't take al Qaeda any more seriously than Clinton... until they flew airplanes into buildings.

Correct. Bush, too, had ample opportunity to do something during his first seven presidential months and failed to do so. After 9.11.01, he changed his posture which is what all the fuss now is about. The problem now is many of the Clinton people are coming back to roost in the new administration which, as you might imagine, concerns me.

Changed his posture, Dam he blew Baghdad to Sh*t but whoops wrong country :roll: It even sounds twisted to hear Obama say Afgahnistan is the place to go when It seemed so likely the right place 6 years ago.

I'm going to speculate and lay this tired argument to rest once and for all.

Had Bush NOT gone into Iraq and concentrated solely on Afghanistan a whole separate can of worms emerges. Aside from the explosive Pakistan issue possibly exploding, this course would have allowed Hussein to continue to persecute his population, fund Palestinian homicide bombers and generally wreak as much havoc as he liked to stir up the witch's stew across the greater Middle East under the new circumstances. Not to mention the U.S. would still be enforcing a no fly zone to protect the Kurds Hussein enjoyed gassing every now and then. Aside from having no idea how history would have played out had this course been chosen, one thing is for sh*t sure: Liberals would have used their media dominance to attack this president and this country. I can see the articles and op ed pieces:

"That lying f*ck Bush said he'd 'take the fight to the terrorists.' Can't an argument be made that Saddam Hussein is the worst kind of terrorist in the Middle East? Why is this moron paying a billion dollars a day in taxpayer cash funding a no fly zone? Shouldn't he finish the job his stupid father started and should have finished himself in a post 9.11 world? Are we supposed to sit back, watch and listen to UN inspectors play a cat/mouse game while Hussein's nuclear engineers march towrd a possible nuclear bomb and more chemical weapons ad infinitum?"

"The U.S. is known around the world as the arbiter of democracy. This president has squandered that image because of his refusal to deal with the elephant in the room. Saddam Hussein is now believed to be harboring some of al Qaeda's worst terrorists. Mr. Hussein has shown in the past to have to no relationship with al Qaeda or bin Laden. Recent intelligence suggests in a new world order, it's become in Hussein's interest to stick it to U.S. any way he can. Like the enemy of my enemy is now my friend. This president will go down in history as the worst because when he had the opportunity, he didn't take out the Hussein regime."

And so on. George Bush will go down in history as an imperfect yet principled president. He did the best he could given an emerging threat that exploded onto the scene on 9.11.01.

Liberals hate the U.S. and what it stands for. Liberals hate capitalism and free trade because it frees the enslaved from oppressive government regulations. Liberals lie through their teeth to achieve their own despicable ends. Liberals are bigoted and racist scum.

Merry Christmas.

your so full of sh*t. If the uS was soo worried about Nukes we should have invaded Iran and Korea already not to mention Pakistan which has nukes and is known as a hang out for Bin Laden himself. SO we go into Iraq cause Saddam was a bad guy but not Pakistan where we know they have actually terrorists hiding out cause we don't want to mess with Pakistan. You make the US sound like a ***** who likes to pick on the weak kids cause the big kid might hit back. I prefer to think the US has an policy to go after countries with oil or gas pipe lines rather then just liking to pick on the little kid.

Liberals don't hate the US , they don't like greedy scum suckers like the Bush administration. Thats the one thing that really is a good idea in the US , Your ALLOWED to not like them and can voice your opinion without reprisal. But then with the new terrorist laws we are turning into Russia. Harold and Kumar isn't far from the truth as the Feds have stomped on human rights in the guise of fighting terrorism when they know where the real terrorists hang out, but watch out Pakistan has nukes :shock:

[eagle]

And so on. George Bush will go down in history as an imperfect yet principled president. He did the best he could given an emerging threat that exploded onto the scene on 9.11.01.

Liberals hate the U.S. and what it stands for. Liberals hate capitalism and free trade because it frees the enslaved from oppressive government regulations. Liberals lie through their teeth to achieve their own despicable ends. Liberals are bigoted and racist scum.

Merry Christmas.

u r a f**kwit of the highest order !!

I am so far beyond you it's hilarious.

What in the f*ck wit stakes?

He is so far gone that is true. So far right he is off the page :roll:

[eagle]

So let me see if I can get this right. Saddam is a bad guy who "Maybe" has bad weapons so lets go Bomb and kill millions who did nothing while we pray to Jesus who saved us by dieing on the cross. Sorry George but that don't make sense. Jesus would be ashamed :roll:

[eagle]

The US had no real threat coming from Iraq. It was all just an excuse to use fear as a ploy to go into Iraq. Yes, Bush stayed the course, yes, he was a man of his principles. Don't forget that some see his principles are seen as being inherently evil and greedy served with a side dish of ignorance.

I don't see the Bush administration as ignorant in what they did but in how Bush claims to be christian in doing it. I think they knew exactly what they were doing and successfully set up bases to control the region. Now that Iraq is under control its time to go into Afghanistan and finish the bases there securing the gas pipelines they have coming thru the mountains. Terrorist are a great excuse but we got special forces who could take care of them if thats all we wanted. But that would be illegal right, like they care about that :roll:

[vbroker]

The US had no real threat coming from Iraq.

As it turns out, no nuclear threat. Hindsight is 20/20.

It was all just an excuse to use fear as a ploy to go into Iraq.

Uhhhhhhhhhhh...that's because there WAS universal fear maybe? Ploy? Sounds secretive like there was a cover up. No. There was a PUBLIC posture change from defensive to offensive.

Yes, Bush stayed the course, yes, he was a man of his principles. Don't forget that some see his principles are seen as being inherently evil and greedy served with a side dish of ignorance.

Constructive criticism, conscientious objections and legitimate dissent are welcome and expected. That's NOT what the hard left trades in.

So let me see if I can get this right. Saddam is a bad guy who "Maybe" has bad weapons so lets go Bomb and kill millions who did nothing while we pray to Jesus who saved us by dieing on the cross. Sorry George but that don't make sense. Jesus would be ashamed :roll:

Let's try this again, Pal. The post SPECULATED how the left wingnuts might have attacked the president and his policies had he NOT gone into Iraq. The point was HE WOULD HAVE BEEN MERCILESSLY ATTACKED ANYWAY like we've never seen the free press do to a wartime president. Correction...we have seen it; haven't we? And I thought we were making educational progress with you.

Merry Christmas.

[vbroker]

And so on. George Bush will go down in history as an imperfect yet principled president. He did the best he could given an emerging threat that exploded onto the scene on 9.11.01.

Liberals hate the U.S. and what it stands for. Liberals hate capitalism and free trade because it frees the enslaved from oppressive government regulations. Liberals lie through their teeth to achieve their own despicable ends. Liberals are bigoted and racist scum.

Merry Christmas.

u r a f**kwit of the highest order !!

Really. Are you like 12 and a half. Great insight.

No. But he's a pro with 12 and a half pints and shots. Esp. on someone else's tab. Loves happy hour too.

[eagle]

]Clinton speaks for himself.

obviously Clinton does everything he can to make Clinton look good, but at least *he* is a primary source... more interesting than twice-digested spin.

by most (fact-based) accounts i've read, Dubya didn't take al Qaeda any more seriously than Clinton... until they flew airplanes into buildings.

Correct. Bush, too, had ample opportunity to do something during his first seven presidential months and failed to do so. After 9.11.01, he changed his posture which is what all the fuss now is about. The problem now is many of the Clinton people are coming back to roost in the new administration which, as you might imagine, concerns me.

Changed his posture, Dam he blew Baghdad to Sh*t but whoops wrong country :roll: It even sounds twisted to hear Obama say Afgahnistan is the place to go when It seemed so likely the right place 6 years ago.

I'm going to speculate and lay this tired argument to rest once and for all.

Had Bush NOT gone into Iraq and concentrated solely on Afghanistan a whole separate can of worms emerges. Aside from the explosive Pakistan issue possibly exploding, this course would have allowed Hussein to continue to persecute his population, fund Palestinian homicide bombers and generally wreak as much havoc as he liked to stir up the witch's stew across the greater Middle East under the new circumstances. Not to mention the U.S. would still be enforcing a no fly zone to protect the Kurds Hussein enjoyed gassing every now and then. Aside from having no idea how history would have played out had this course been chosen, one thing is for sh*t sure: Liberals would have used their media dominance to attack this president and this country. I can see the articles and op ed pieces:

"That lying f*ck Bush said he'd 'take the fight to the terrorists.' Can't an argument be made that Saddam Hussein is the worst kind of terrorist in the Middle East? Why is this moron paying a billion dollars a day in taxpayer cash funding a no fly zone? Shouldn't he finish the job his stupid father started and should have finished himself in a post 9.11 world? Are we supposed to sit back, watch and listen to UN inspectors play a cat/mouse game while Hussein's nuclear engineers march towrd a possible nuclear bomb and more chemical weapons ad infinitum?"

"The U.S. is known around the world as the arbiter of democracy. This president has squandered that image because of his refusal to deal with the elephant in the room. Saddam Hussein is now believed to be harboring some of al Qaeda's worst terrorists. Mr. Hussein has shown in the past to have to no relationship with al Qaeda or bin Laden. Recent intelligence suggests in a new world order, it's become in Hussein's interest to stick it to U.S. any way he can. Like the enemy of my enemy is now my friend. This president will go down in history as the worst because when he had the opportunity, he didn't take out the Hussein regime."

And so on. George Bush will go down in history as an imperfect yet principled president. He did the best he could given an emerging threat that exploded onto the scene on 9.11.01.

Liberals hate the U.S. and what it stands for. Liberals hate capitalism and free trade because it frees the enslaved from oppressive government regulations. Liberals lie through their teeth to achieve their own despicable ends. Liberals are bigoted and racist scum.

Merry Christmas.

OF course, I agree with much of this.

Lots that I can't stand about the Bush administration. Things that aren't public. If the public knew all, they'd really be incensed.

LIke I said earlier, it was time to sh*t or get off the pot with Iraq and Saddam Insane. He was a threat to the world. Not only the region and not only to the US. Now he is gone and we can move on. Someday...well, no it won't. The left will never understand or comprehend the need to get rid of SH. It's like the pursuit of Iraqi nukes. They'll always come up empty.

Lots more out there.

Pursuit of Nukes will come up empty because the threat never existed. No WMD even or even a massive pipe bomb complex. Iran and Korea are more of a threat still then Iraq ever was so that argument is BS Java :roll: NO excuse for what they did. Potential as a threat to the world is something Saddam could only dream of. Look at the worlds largest surrender in the first gulf war. Now thats an army we should be afraid of ? And since they had no weapons of mass intention.just "maybe" inclinations towards making and using them INvading and Bombing the sh*t out of the place has no excuse not even with your secret knowledge.

[eagle]

And so on. George Bush will go down in history as an imperfect yet principled president. He did the best he could given an emerging threat that exploded onto the scene on 9.11.01.

Liberals hate the U.S. and what it stands for. Liberals hate capitalism and free trade because it frees the enslaved from oppressive government regulations. Liberals lie through their teeth to achieve their own despicable ends. Liberals are bigoted and racist scum.

Merry Christmas.

u r a f**kwit of the highest order !!

Really. Are you like 12 and a half. Great insight.

No. But he's a pro with 12 and a half pints and shots. Esp. on someone else's tab. Loves happy hour too.

And still with his last gasp he can see you clearly. Must be a leftist scum. Wait he isn't american is he :roll:

[beej]

Oh my god watch out, we are on the Osama topic.

100 million people scared to death of one man thats hiding in a cave somewhere, what a ******* joke.

[eagle]

]Clinton speaks for himself.

obviously Clinton does everything he can to make Clinton look good, but at least *he* is a primary source... more interesting than twice-digested spin.

by most (fact-based) accounts i've read, Dubya didn't take al Qaeda any more seriously than Clinton... until they flew airplanes into buildings.

Correct. Bush, too, had ample opportunity to do something during his first seven presidential months and failed to do so. After 9.11.01, he changed his posture which is what all the fuss now is about. The problem now is many of the Clinton people are coming back to roost in the new administration which, as you might imagine, concerns me.

Changed his posture, Dam he blew Baghdad to Sh*t but whoops wrong country :roll: It even sounds twisted to hear Obama say Afgahnistan is the place to go when It seemed so likely the right place 6 years ago.

I'm going to speculate and lay this tired argument to rest once and for all.

Had Bush NOT gone into Iraq and concentrated solely on Afghanistan a whole separate can of worms emerges. Aside from the explosive Pakistan issue possibly exploding, this course would have allowed Hussein to continue to persecute his population, fund Palestinian homicide bombers and generally wreak as much havoc as he liked to stir up the witch's stew across the greater Middle East under the new circumstances. Not to mention the U.S. would still be enforcing a no fly zone to protect the Kurds Hussein enjoyed gassing every now and then. Aside from having no idea how history would have played out had this course been chosen, one thing is for sh*t sure: Liberals would have used their media dominance to attack this president and this country. I can see the articles and op ed pieces:

"That lying f*ck Bush said he'd 'take the fight to the terrorists.' Can't an argument be made that Saddam Hussein is the worst kind of terrorist in the Middle East? Why is this moron paying a billion dollars a day in taxpayer cash funding a no fly zone? Shouldn't he finish the job his stupid father started and should have finished himself in a post 9.11 world? Are we supposed to sit back, watch and listen to UN inspectors play a cat/mouse game while Hussein's nuclear engineers march towrd a possible nuclear bomb and more chemical weapons ad infinitum?"

"The U.S. is known around the world as the arbiter of democracy. This president has squandered that image because of his refusal to deal with the elephant in the room. Saddam Hussein is now believed to be harboring some of al Qaeda's worst terrorists. Mr. Hussein has shown in the past to have to no relationship with al Qaeda or bin Laden. Recent intelligence suggests in a new world order, it's become in Hussein's interest to stick it to U.S. any way he can. Like the enemy of my enemy is now my friend. This president will go down in history as the worst because when he had the opportunity, he didn't take out the Hussein regime."

And so on. George Bush will go down in history as an imperfect yet principled president. He did the best he could given an emerging threat that exploded onto the scene on 9.11.01.

Liberals hate the U.S. and what it stands for. Liberals hate capitalism and free trade because it frees the enslaved from oppressive government regulations. Liberals lie through their teeth to achieve their own despicable ends. Liberals are bigoted and racist scum.

Merry Christmas.

OF course, I agree with much of this.

Lots that I can't stand about the Bush administration. Things that aren't public. If the public knew all, they'd really be incensed.

LIke I said earlier, it was time to sh*t or get off the pot with Iraq and Saddam Insane. He was a threat to the world. Not only the region and not only to the US. Now he is gone and we can move on. Someday...well, no it won't. The left will never understand or comprehend the need to get rid of SH. It's like the pursuit of Iraqi nukes. They'll always come up empty.

Lots more out there.

Pursuit of Nukes will come up empty because the threat never existed. No WMD even or even a massive pipe bomb complex. Iran and Korea are more of a threat still then Iraq ever was so that argument is BS Java :roll: NO excuse for what they did. Potential as a threat to the world is something Saddam could only dream of. Look at the worlds largest surrender in the first gulf war. Now thats an army we should be afraid of ? And since they had no weapons of mass intention.just "maybe" inclinations towards making and using them INvading and Bombing the sh*t out of the place has no excuse not even with your secret knowledge.

Who speaks to his Army.

He was paying 25,000 duckies to anyone who wanted to strap on a suicide vest. How long until Saddam joined in with Osama? Osama is known for alliances of convenience. It's no matter that they were enemies also.

Stalin was the enemy of the West in WWII and still we were allies in WWII. Many more instances of this but you will discount them. No matter what...

iffy maybes could be spouted about a lot of leaders. NO ties between Saddam and Bin Laden were found and an eventual alliance doesn't count for sh*T! Just because they both had anti american sentiment doesn't warrant a massive attack against innocent people with an overkill of radioactive weapons that are still killing and mutating people as we speak. Not to mention the damage done the US sevicemen who had to go into radioactive zones in the first and second invasion to be exposed to radioactivity. Strange that Gulfwar syndrome. Vets are screwed just like in Vietnam with agent orange. A complete disregard for the well being of the soldiers. No radioactive weapons were needed to achieve what they did. Just a chance to play with their new toys, sick f*ckers :twisted: Oh and Palestine is tops in suicide vests so why not invade the West Bank. Your arguments have no merit. I think it was just a matter of time till Saddam got a bullet in the head and they could have a nice civil war without US involvement.