Defense Secretary: We Had No Hard Evidence That Soleimani Was Going To Attack

Jul 2019
4,514
4,603
Atlanta
That guy sounds like he's just simpering around the edges and pretending to say something when he's not.

It's irrelevant to my argument how large the stockpiles were or how advanced their production was. The basic point was Saddam obviously had chemical and biological weapons - because he used them against the Iranians.

So you can either believe he destroyed them or moved them into Syria prior to the invasion. Given the evidence I've seen - I believe the latter, especially over the common narrative that nearly our entire Federal Government concocted the story so they could be made a fool of later and lose credibility on the world stage.

In respect to the regime change aspects of the Iraq war - we are probably in agreement. I did not support the Iraqi invasion or the way the war was handled. But as I say, I also don't buy the narrative that Saddam's WMD was all a lie, either.
That was back during the 1980s when Iran and Iraq were at war. By the time Bush invaded Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions. WMDs were a lie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: llovejim
Sep 2019
1,211
1,711
dfw, texas
Do not Underestimate who the Left Supports here ...

It IS NOT the AMERICAN people ...
bullshit. most american people agree trump is a piece of shit lying pig, and this attack will cause us more harm than good...so why lie? and although soleimani is one of many hundreds of killers tied to terrorism and more responsible for terrorist attacks than most, the way Trump handled this does this country more harm than good. it is not like this guy is not going to be replaced by someone just as screwed up, with another 200 ready to go to take that guy's place if he is assassinated. Assassination of a foreign country's leaders outside of a declared war is not only illegal , it is the dumbest way possible to try and defeat an enemy. one general is not any more significant a loss to the enemy than 1 trained soldier who actually does kill civilians or other soldiers.

Killing Soleimani made US less safe; Trump reckless on Iran ...

https://www.usatoday.com › story › news › politics › 2020/01/09 › killing-...

5 days ago - Americans by more than 2-1 said the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani has made the United States less safe, a nationwide USA ...
Poll: 55 percent of Americans say killing of Soleimani makes ...

https://thehill.com › homenews › administration › 477532-poll-55-percent...

5 days ago - A majority of Americans in a new poll say the U.S. drone strike that ... "Ipsos's survey finds that the public is divided on the Soleimani killing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charleston2
Jul 2019
4,514
4,603
Atlanta
bullshit. most american people agree trump is a piece of shit lying pig, and this attack will cause us more harm than good...so why lie? and although soleimani is one of many hundreds of killers tied to terrorism and more responsible for terrorist attacks than most, the way Trump handled this does this country more harm than good. it is not like this guy is not going to be replaced by someone just as screwed up, with another 200 ready to go to take that guy's place if he is assassinated. Assassination of a foreign country's leaders outside of a declared war is not only illegal , it is the dumbest way possible to try and defeat an enemy. one general is not any more significant a loss to the enemy than 1 trained soldier who actually does kill civilians or other soldiers.

Killing Soleimani made US less safe; Trump reckless on Iran ...
https://www.usatoday.com › story › news › politics › 2020/01/09 › killing-...

5 days ago - Americans by more than 2-1 said the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani has made the United States less safe, a nationwide USA ...
Poll: 55 percent of Americans say killing of Soleimani makes ...
https://thehill.com › homenews › administration › 477532-poll-55-percent...

5 days ago - A majority of Americans in a new poll say the U.S. drone strike that ... "Ipsos's survey finds that the public is divided on the Soleimani killing.
What the US has done to Iraq is NOT something to be proud of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: llovejim
Sep 2019
1,211
1,711
dfw, texas
That was back during the 1980s when Iran and Iraq were at war. By the time Bush invaded Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions. WMDs were a lie.
why do so many trump voters try to argue when it is clear they either never read anything about what they are trying to argue, or they only listened to fox's version of it, or infowars'? even bush admits there was no wmds in iraq. our own inspection team, led by David Kay, we sent in AFTER we invaded and occupied found no weaponized wmds of any sort, and no way of producing any within any short time even if they tried. along with the duelfer report for the UN. it was in all the papers....

The Real News in the Duelfer Report | The Heritage Foundation
https://www.heritage.org › middle-east › the-real-news-the-duelfer-report

Oct 7, 2004 - Saddam didn't have WMDs.


David Kay: WMDs That Never Were, A War That Ever Was : NPR
https://www.npr.org › 2011/05/29 › david-kay-wmds-that-never-were-a-war...

May 29, 2011 - In 2004, almost a year after the start of the Iraq War, David Kay resigned his post as the United States' chief weapons inspector in Iraq. Kay said his group had found no evidence that Iraq had stockpiled chemical and biological weapons before the U.S.-led invasion.

Bush Admits No WMDs in Iraq

The following transcript snippet is taken from this morning's presidential news conference. This exchange took place near the end of President George W. Bush's remarks and responses.

In this excerpt, the President flatly refutes the two reasons he and his administration used to goad Congress and frighten the American public into the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

This is the first time the President or Vice President have publicly admitted that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and was not connected to the 9/11 attacks.

"BUSH: Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction...

You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of -- the "stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were --

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with that?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- Iraq -- the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.

Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.." (total bullshit. every person connected to bush suggested iraq was connected to 9/11, and lied about the wmds)
 
Jul 2019
4,514
4,603
Atlanta
why do so many trump voters try to argue when it is clear they either never read anything about what they are trying to argue, or they only listened to fox's version of it, or infowars'? even bush admits there was no wmds in iraq. our own inspection team, led by David Kay, we sent in AFTER we invaded and occupied found no weaponized wmds of any sort, and no way of producing any within any short time even if they tried. along with the duelfer report for the UN. it was in all the papers....

The Real News in the Duelfer Report | The Heritage Foundation
https://www.heritage.org › middle-east › the-real-news-the-duelfer-report

Oct 7, 2004 - Saddam didn't have WMDs.


David Kay: WMDs That Never Were, A War That Ever Was : NPR
https://www.npr.org › 2011/05/29 › david-kay-wmds-that-never-were-a-war...

May 29, 2011 - In 2004, almost a year after the start of the Iraq War, David Kay resigned his post as the United States' chief weapons inspector in Iraq. Kay said his group had found no evidence that Iraq had stockpiled chemical and biological weapons before the U.S.-led invasion.

Bush Admits No WMDs in Iraq

The following transcript snippet is taken from this morning's presidential news conference. This exchange took place near the end of President George W. Bush's remarks and responses.

In this excerpt, the President flatly refutes the two reasons he and his administration used to goad Congress and frighten the American public into the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

This is the first time the President or Vice President have publicly admitted that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and was not connected to the 9/11 attacks.

"BUSH: Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction...

You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of -- the "stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were --

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with that?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- Iraq -- the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.

Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.."
The invasion was a complete screw up.. Diplomats, oilmen, the Arabs, historians and diplomats all knew it would be a disaster.. I resigned the Republican party before the invasion. Americans should be ashamed over what we have done to Iraq.
 
Jul 2014
41,606
11,510
midwest
My point is that you were waxing about how important the truth is and then you support one of the worst liars....makes no sense to me at all.
My "waxing about how important the truth is" pertains to this forum, and only this forum, where someone may actually do something about lying (or inaccurate) thread titles.

Or maybe not, but at least I can point it out.

If you still are perplexed, just ask, and I'll try again to explain it.
 
Oct 2013
14,634
13,539
Sweden
My "waxing about how important the truth is" pertains to this forum, and only this forum, where someone may actually do something about lying (or inaccurate) thread titles.

Or maybe not, but at least I can point it out.

If you still are perplexed, just ask, and I'll try again to explain it.
LOL so its important that other posters are honest on a message board but its not so important from the president.....yea, that makes no sense either. I think you are lying! You dont think truth is important at all...which explains why you are lying about it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: charleston2