An editorial in a defunct conservative paper (New York Sun) vindicates Bush. Too funny.

I guess the mainstream media (and most other media) missed this story too, considering its four years old. I'm sure its legit though.

Mapu - Keep your head in the sand...that's what we expect - a conservative outlet reported what the main stream media refuses to report - which is the data that was released in WikiLeaks. This isn't an opinion piece -- it's a reporting piece.

But....you know...don't let the facts get in the way of your emotionally-held opinions.

Thank you for behaving *exactly* as I predicted you (of your ilk) would act.

At least 2WL shows a little integrity here.

And actually, the mainstream press, on rare occassion, did report during the war of finds by the military of chemical warheads and stuff....only, not surprisingly, during the anti-Bush media era, chemical warheads were suddenly NOT WMD's....you know, the same chemical warheads that ARE WMD's when owned by Syria...

Sorry to dismiss an opinion editorial, written in a political newsletter, in a presidential election year, as not an actual news source. No agenda there or anything.

Oh yeah. And the Bush administration kept totally silent on this because freedom or something? Keep in mind this is coming from the same yahoos who think that climate change isn't happening, that evolution is a hoax and that cutting taxes boosts revenue. Reality isn't exactly a strong suit of this movement. They don't call them faith-based for nothing!

Then why don't you look the information up on WikiLeaks yourself and <GASP> verify it.

Oh...wait...that's right, it's easier to bury you head in the sand.

Actually, some of this information, as I stated before, was in the media, such as the militayr finding Chemical warheads during the war - but the mainstream media had already played the "Bush Lied" card, and so going back and reporting that chemcial warheads are in fact WMD's...and that they were wrong in calling Bush a liar...just wasn't going to happen. But it was reported, whether or not you heard it.

But...pleased as punch to watch the dance monkeys dance. Dance, dance..ta tee da...la la la...fling your poo...don't do your own research...fling fling fling...

OH Noooooeessssssss.....

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/

You mean WIRED Magazine says the same thing...that WikiLeaks vindicates Bush!?!? But....but...• but Wired isn’t a Conservative rag??!?! How can this be!??!?! <World crumbling…confusion…hallucinations….Libtards frothing at the mouth…>

So you are saying the war in Iraq was worthwhile and Bush was right, even in hindsight. And a Wired article proves it.

The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest.

Did I say anything about the merit of the Iraq War? lol Silly boy.

I pointed out something very simple: Libtards and the mainstream media and teh Demoncrat party tried to vilify Bush as a liar...mostly based on the conflicting reporting of one guy in the CIA who had contradicting stories.

In what couldn't have been more blatantly political, the mainstream press accused Bush of lying, despite evidence to the contrary. The mainstream media then ignored future reports of the *actual finding* of WMD's in country, in order to continue their Anti-Bush agenda.

In what couldn't have more blatantly political, the Democrat party, to a man, also ignored these facts -- more interested in tearing down a President than they were in saving the face of *the country* before the world.

Just pointing out the complete and utter lack of integrity possessed by Democrats and the liberal media.

You may judge the merit of the war yourself.

"Just pointing out the complete and utter lack of integrity possessed by Democrats and the liberal media."

By the way, said lack of integrity applies to many of you dance monkeys, too...

Sorry, did these chemicals mean that Iraq represented an immediate threat? Because that was the story being told in 2003.

where was it depicted as an "immediate" threat?

This is a lot similar to the Obama "citizenship" nonsense. If the story was real, or had any real teeth to it, the GOP would have been pushing it already. The fact that no prominent members of the current GOP or Bush-era members have brought this to the public's attention must only mean that its value is much less than krellin imagines.

By all means, read wired and the wikileaks documents. No evidence of any weapons programs whatsoever, just remnants of the largely dismantled chemical weapons program tht the UN dismantled after the Gulf War. Just as has been previously reported. In fact, we knew Hussein had these because Reagan and Rumsfeld sold these chemical weapons to Hussein which he then used for war crimes. Indeed, Bush's documents prove that Bush lied through his teeth to get his war to boost his sagging poll numbers and help his military contractor and oil company friends. Case closed

there is pretty much zero chance either dems or reps would cite wikileaks data to support their positions. they'd just maintain their positions as they have done. it's not discredited due to lack of citation; citing it would "bless" wikileaks which no one wants to do.

@Tendmote: i don't have an exact quote, but there was countless references in media to intelligence reports.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2004/01/29/459/in-their-own-words-iraqs-imminent-threat/

The issue wasn't the Iraq had chemical weapons, or the capability to produce them - they'd had that since '91. The issue was that these weapons could be deployed in short order against US allies (though when this threat became so immediate is something i might ask) - the story you will be told be the other side is that sanctions from '91 to '03 lead to this ability being severely undermined and only remnants being leftover (which it sounds like the wikileaks document Krellin is talking about supports)

If you listen to the Arab/Al Quaeda narrative, the US sanctions lead to the deaths of thousands of children between '91 and '03 - and the US (not the Iraqi government who was failing to provide food to these children) are at fault for these deaths, possibly in their thousands.

If you believe this later narrative, then the US had a very good reason for going into Iraq, but saving the lives of Iraqis wouldn't have sold well domestically. Ending the sanctions wasn't a good option - because Iraq had kept as much of it's weapons infrastructure as possible, and continuing it had proven not to achieve it's aims... so what other option was there?

When someon commits a felony, they are not allowed to own firearms, period. This means, if they currently possess firearms, they have to get rid of them. If the cops come and find single firearm in the house, the felon goes back to prison.

After Iraw's invasion of Kuwait, there were certain things they were supposed to do...like not shoot at the fighter air patrols in the no fly zone (which they did constantly)...and get rid of their chemical weapons program. That would include getting rid of the *chemical weapons*.

It's hilarious to watch the dance monkeys shuffle and froth as they try to backpedal. The claim by Democrats/Libtards/Lamestream Media was *THERE ARE NO WMD'S IN IRAQ*. The claim was NOT "there are WMD's, but the program to produce more has ended".

You intellectually dishonest...and utterly predictable...liberal lapdogs are repulsive.

You know those chemical shells used in Syria that the *world* got all huffy puffy about, and Obama threatened to go to war over. SAME DAMNED THING morons. The SAME weapons the *the world* got in an uproar about a year ago until Putin promised to spank Assad.

What is perplecing is this: American prestige is the question. Even Libtards should want to see the US viewed in a positive light in the world....as opposed to being a super-power that projects power without cause. The existence of WMD's means that the US is *not* necessarily the bad actor it has been portrayed as being. People should be *happy* the WMD's existed, because it means that *maybe* the US was acting out of good conscience, instead of deciet.

Sadly, Libtards and Demoncrats would view such an admission as a political loss...and US prestige be damned, they'd rather be "right" than honest...

Fuck Libtards. Fuck Demoncrats. Who needs enemies when you have Libtards and Demoncrats to destroy the country from within....

Iraq is not a member of any group over which the So

'You know those chemical shells used in Syria that the *world* got all huffy puffy about, and Obama threatened to go to war over. SAME DAMNED THING morons.'

No, there is a difference between a regime which IS CURRENTLY using those weapons, and one which WAS ATTACKED after using them.

Syrian chemical weapons were used against targets (but i'm not clear on by who nor on whom) and nobody attacked. Saddam meanwhile used chemical weapons against the Kurds in northern Iraq - who had rebelled and were (in '88 trying to remove him from power), and... nothing happened. Ok... not entirely the retaliation Obama hoped for in Syria.

'People should be *happy* the WMD's existed, because it means that *maybe* the US was acting out of good conscience, instead of deciet.'

Yeah, that's it, people should be happy because they can paint over historical events with a simple Good guys vs Bad guys morality, what are you, Krellin, 6 years old?

'Iraq is not a member of any group over which the So' - sorry that should read - Iraq was not a sovereign subject of the United States, your comparison with fellony - who ARE subjects of US sovereignty is complete bollocks.

I didn't have to light the fire... Just sitting back with my Jiffy Pop and enjoying the show!

Orath -- again, thanks for being a good libtard dance monkey.

The use of a chemical shell i Syria was splattered all over the news as the most horrifying event possible....regardless of the fact that the death toll from said weapon paled in comparison to the (STILL INCREASING) death toll by explosively propelled lead slugs and shrapnel.

Good libtards and democrats and media shrunken heads were twiddling their fingers and recognizing that Obama might have to go to war because of the horror....the horror of it all...

You are trying to pretend their is some grand nuanced decision making here. No....it's pretty fucking blunt. Obama ignored Syria until chemical weapons were brought in to play, then suddenly a bunch of people were jumping up and down about the need to go to war because WE (the global collection of nations/human beings) don't mind conventional killing en'mass....but doing it with icky gas is particularly abhorrent, and we justify war because of it. Period. End of discussion.

So back in time....baaaaack.....baaaaaaack.....<time traveling music>.....baaa-aa-aaack....

Iraw, Georgie-Boy is President....Hussein, world's favorite bad guy Known to have used WMD’s against his own people….invaded a neighboring nation without cause….That bad guy, who has been told to get rid of his WMD program, is found to be trying to procure the yellowcake necessary for a nifty little nuke program. You know…exactly what he is NOT supposed to do. He *constantly* fucks with UN Weapons inspectors, delaying their “surprise” inspections (meaning they are no longer surprises), and generally acting like a belligerent dick hiding shit. The *world’s* intelligence agencies are ALL in agreement that he’s doing bad shit…WMD’s….HILLARY CLINTON and BILL CLINTON agree…they’ve seen the intelligence. DEMOCRATS are behind the action…EVERYBODY KNOWS and acknowledges that ALL the intel says Hussein has WMD’s, and wants more. THAT is why we went to war….and why DEMOCRATS FULLY AGREED.

And then Bush/Republican political polling data went through the roof…and Democrats knew the war was already under way (and therefore the bad guy would be taken care of), so it was time to start reversing the bad political numbers…and so the anti-Bush rhetoric started…there was no immediate finding of an active nuclear program…and so suddenly the **TRUTH** that Hussein had WMD’s was twisted by the willing accomplices in the media…all of the sudden it wasn’t “we went to war because Hussein has WMD’s”…it was “We only went to war if and only if he had an nuclear weapons program”….which is a totally different standard than “WMD’s”…and without this nuclear program, the willing lapdog media and the vile Democrat political machine says Bush lied…there were no WMD’s (even though they were)…

The only people that have consistently lied ae Democrats…first through the changing recounting of the history of Iraq, their changing definition of what constitutes a WMD, and then their denial of the actual evidence of WMD’s.

All this lying, by Democrats, done *solely* for the purpose of securing political power…at the expense of US prestige.

A vile lot of people, without a doubt. And you…the poo flingers, the dance monkeys…that, even when faced with facts continue to parrot your political puppet-masters….well, I guess you are the reason the Hitler’s of history have such an easy time taking control of the sheeple…

And, lest you are truly too stupid to comprehend the Felony analogy....I didn't suggest that Iraw "is a felon"...I'm suggesting that by any rational standard...such as with a felon....such as with a WMD possessing country....when you tell someone to disarm, it means DISARM. Felons can't have ANY guns...and countries told to get rid of their WMD programs are not allowed to have ANY WMD's laying around in fucking stock-piles hidden under the desert to hide them from UN weapons inspectors.

God what a fucktard you are. Are you truly this stupid, Orath? Curious...or are you just pretending to be this stupid for effect?

Thanks for bringing your unique brand of simplification to the table, have you anything else to add?

Not being a democrat, i don't have to defend their decision to invade Iraq.

In fact, i'm torn on the issue myself. Though Krellin seems a little too small minded to realise such. The democrats may have criticised the Bush administration for lying to the public about WMDs in Iraq, and that remains a convincing criticism.

The Bush administration didn't find any credible threat, which as i've shown in a single link above, was used to justify military action - no to sell it to the american people.

Now I suppose i could claim that it was right to go into Iraq, that US sanctions were killing children - though this was an unintended side-effect, not something the evil Clin-Thons had planned from the very beginning - and thus some action was needed.

If we look back you'll see 'Hussein, world's favorite bad guy Known to have used WMD’s against his own people….invaded a neighboring nation without cause' - The cause was US encouragement, because they wanted an ally in the region, and the Iranian people had been pushing into revolution because of a US supported Shah.

Sure, you might be talked about Kuwait, but you can't ignore the history. Saddam used chemical weapons against Iranians on the front lines, but still pulled back to Iraqi territory, and he used them against Kurdish rebels who had risen up - his own people if only because he was pretty effective at suppressing them. (now, thanks to the US invasion and resulting power vacuum the Kurds have their own federal entity within Iraq)

I'm glad you have reverted to ad homine though, I was wondering whether you could elaborate. Which parts of my comments are 'truly stupid' and which are 'stupid for effect'? Can you help me decipher your personal biases?

Orath - if I am small minded, it is only because OBAMA, the UNITED STATES, and the UNITED NATIONS are all small minded.

Mass murder in not grounds to remove a belligerent ruler who threatens to destabilize a region...who is, in fact, destabilizing a region.

The single use of a chemical weapon *IS* grounds...

This is not *MY* rule. This is the World's rules.

If you think you are smarter and more nuanced than the World...then I suggest you are in the wrong line of work.

And yet..smart as you are, you are still too stupid, apparently, to get the point of the point I have made. I'm not asking anyone to defend the decision to go to Iraq. I am pointing out that Democrats and the Libtard Lapdogs in the media are a bunch of rotten fucking liars, and that Bush has been vindicated as NOT a liar. Period. End of point.

You are apparently sooooooooo damned smart that you see points being made that were never intended and are thus arguing them....oh, wait...no...that's just you being a moron...

If you want to discuss the merits of the decision to go to war...then you lose at the start, as the decision was a fucking broad-based universal decision made not only by Bush, but by the overwhelming authorization to use force by Libtard Demoncrats and Republipukes alike. That is why the decision to go to are need not be debated...it was agreed by all that it was action that must be taken.

It as only AFTER the war began, and the political polling data had Republicans in office forever...the Demoncrats suddenly redefined what they meant, rewrote history, said they never supported the war we have the signatures to prove they supported, etc...

...and the Orwellian Libtard Dance Monkeys (that's YOU...) purged your memory and acepted the New Demoncrat Truth as the Always-Been...instead of seeing it for the Recently-Created...and you spewed and vomitted and flung your poo because your puppet-master's told you to.

Good dance monkey.

I don't think i'm smarter than the nuances of the World, i think your linked article at the opening of this thread blatantly disregards the justification used to go to war with Iraq in 2003.

You seem to think that this is some fantastic vindication, but it doesn't mean Iraq was an imminent threat TO THE US. It doesn't mean that Iraq had the ability to project it's weapons at all, it does mean that chemicals were still on the ground. NOT a threat - therefore BUSH lied. NOT linked to Al-Qaeda - therefore Bush LIED. But i guess i'm just repeating myself at this point, maybe because you didn't listen the first time.

On the other hand what counts as casus bellum depends largely on what you can get away with. Inventing some rules about chemical weapons is fine, and was done for fairly good historical reasons... Chemistry was never popular with the military, and when used in WW1 it was largely ineffective, so they decided to 'ban' it. But without any enforcement such a ban is meaningless.

It's like having a concept of a war crime but never enforcing it. Pointless, so YES the World at large has reason to want to stop chemical weapons from being used, EVER. And most hawkish-prowar militarys are more than happy to support the World in that. The fact that Obama wanted to use this as an excuse to get into Syria in no way takes away from the excuses Bush used to get into Iraq.

In fact, i might claim that these are completely unrelated, because they are. Obama wants to see peace in Syria, and didn't invade (which may have been a mistake) still wants peace there and thought about invading, until congress voted him down... And is currently supporting attempted peace talks under the UN.

So he hasn't managed to achieve peace in Syria, and he doesn't have the support of the public to use military force, but chemical weapons gave him a shot at getting that support. Is Obama perfect? No, not by a long shot, but neither is the US, or the UN, and don't get me started on my natives...

"and the Orwellian Libtard Dance Monkeys (that's YOU...) purged your memory and acepted the New Demoncrat Truth as the Always-Been" - no, i believe you'll find the French didn't agree, neither did the Germans, both of whom i suspect sent troops to Afghanistan.

So it was far from universal. But i remain firmly NOT on the side of your democrats.

"You seem to think that this is some fantastic vindication, but it doesn't mean Iraq was an imminent threat TO THE US..."

Good.....fucking.....lord.....how.....stupid....are....you....

THAT....IS.....NOT....THE....TOPIC....OF....THE.....ARTICLE....OR....THIS....THREAD.....AT....ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.....

With every post, you convince me of your dance monkiness and lower my guess at your IQ by another 10. You'll be in Putin territory soon enough...