Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Belize, the political landscape seems stable and the official language is English. That would probably be my destination if I left the US, but I don't see anything that could make me want to leave. 

I agree most believed Saddam had at least chemical weapons.  He had used them before, it's a bit of a mystery what happened to them.

Meanwhile, North Korea has tested nuclear weapons and nearly everyone believes Israel has some number of them, somewhere.

Yes, it is true. They knew. Bush didn't listen to top analysts in his intelligence apparatus. He lied from beginning to end and Cheney put pressure on his intelligence agencies to fabricate evidence. And that is exactly what they did in order to get the authorization of military force from Congress and sell the war to the American public. They knew Saddam didn't have a nuclear weapon, his nuclear weapons program had already been decapitated and disarmed. And they knew god damn well Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and wasn't in bed with Al-Qaeda. They flat out made it up. All of it. How do we know this? Because people involved talk about it openly. You can I don't know, read some articles or books on the topic or watch some documentaries on it to educate yourself, maybe?

In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a “massive stockpile” of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had “no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad’s disposal.” The “massive stockpile” was just literally made up.

In December 2002, Bush declared, “We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon.“ That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, “We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009.” Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon — and lied and said he didn’t know to hype the threat.

• On CNN in September 2002, Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs.” This was precisely the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were saying; they argue that not only was it very possible the tubes were for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too. Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were exaggerated by administration officials — and in any case, the claim that they’re “only really suited” for nuclear weapons is just false.

• On numerous occasions, Dick Cheney cited a report that 9/11 conspirator Mohammed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer. He said this after the CIA and FBI concluded that this meeting never took place.

More generally on the question of Iraq and al-Qaeda, on September 18, 2001, Rice received a memo summarizing intelligence on the relationship, which concluded there was little evidence of links. Nonetheless Bush continued to claim that Hussein was “a threat because he’s dealing with al-Qaeda” more than a year later. This is a damning example of Cheney citing discredited intelligence to score points. Intelligence experts had said there was nothing to this tale, but Cheney kept on mentioning the alleged Atta-Iraq connection to suggest Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Commission later reconfirmed that this report of a Prague meeting was bunk.


In August 2002, Dick Cheney declared, “Simply stated, there’s no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” But as Corn notes, at that time there was “no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation.” Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended Cheney’s speech, would later say in a documentary, “It was a total shock. I couldn’t believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program.” In other words, bad intelligence did not cause Cheney to make this categorical, bold, and frightening statement. He just did it.

The Atta allegation was part of a wider effort mounted by the Bush-Cheney administration to link Saddam to 9/11. In November 2002, Bush said Saddam “is a threat because he’s dealing with Al Qaeda.” Weeks earlier, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had claimed he had “bullet-proof” evidence that Saddam was tied to Osama bin Laden. In March 2003, Cheney asserted that Saddam had a “long-standing relationship” with Al Qaeda. The intelligence did not show this. As the 9/11 Commission later concluded, there had been no intelligence confirming significant contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Once again, Bush and Cheney were not being fooled by flawed intelligence; they were were pushing disinformation.


At a press conference at the end of 2002, Bush declared, “We don’t know whether or not [Saddam] has a nuclear weapon.” He clearly was suggesting that Saddam might already possess these dangerous weapons. Yet no intelligence at the time indicated that the Iraqi dictator had by then developed such weapons. The administration also insisted Saddam had been shopping for uranium in Africa, even though the intelligence on this point was dubious.

Your point about Hillary Clinton makes no sense and is irrelevant to this discussion at hand. And if you're seriously asking why Hillary Clinton voted for the AUMF- in case you haven't noticed she did so because she's a blood thirsty psychopathic warmongerer who has never been against any foreign war or any bombing campaign in her entire adult political life. This is a woman who campaigned heavily to Obama to bomb Libya and who openly brags about bombing Libya into the Stone Age to help terrorist groups on the ground overthrew Gaddafi and rape him to death by shoving a sword up his ass on the streets- and destroy that country which was maybe the most successful country on the African continent and turn it into a failed state with open slave markets. "We came, we saw, he died...HAHAHAHA!" And one of the big reasons she wound up leaving the Obama administration is because they had a huge rift over Syria- she pushed and prodded Obama to get more involved in Syria- and he was wary over what he felt like was a mistake in Libya. This was the beginning of a rift between them and why she later left his administration. In case you haven't noticed- that woman is a psychopath.

US has the best most advanced spying & intelligence services on planet earth. US has the most advanced spy satellites, spy planes, & spy drones in the entire world. NSA collects just about every single electronic communication on planet earth in real time and stores them onto databases. CIA/NSA have hardware & software backdoors into damn near everything. CIA has shell companies/fronts operating with human assets on the ground operating in damn near every single country. US has nearly 280 embassies in 174 countries and there are CIA personnel in every single god damn one of them. US has the best raw intelligence network in the entire world. The problem the US faces is the political leadership and military leadership plays games with the raw intelligence to get the desired outcomes they want. AKA they lie and make shit up. President appoints the head of these intelligence agencies and can tell them to cherry pick intelligence or outright falsify intelligence- and the Pentagon is basically always pushing the President to bomb or invade someone. The deep state/military industrial complex is a very real thing.

In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a “massive stockpile” of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had “no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad’s disposal.” The “massive stockpile” was just literally made up.

US knew Saddam had once possesed chemical weapons because the US gave Saddam the precursors and dual use technology to make those chemical weapons in the 80s, which he then used on the Iranians and Kurds. Bunch of swell guys we are! No wonder why they love us over there!

His WMD weapons program had been virtually decapitated after the first Gulf War

In December 2002, Bush declared, “We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon.“ That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, “We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009.” Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon — and lied and said he didn’t know to hype the threat.

Hey you're the same hound that thought starving 3/4 of a million German citizens in WWI blockade wasn't a war crime or violation of human rights

According to AI - No, Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction at the time of the U.S. invasion in 2003, as confirmed by subsequent inspections and reports. The claims of extensive WMD stockpiles were later found to be false.

The UK's then-Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said it was "beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein was continuing to produce WMD.

What allegations did the US and UK make against Iraq?
US Secretary of State Colin Powell told the UN in 2003 that Iraq had "mobile labs" for producing biological weapons.

However, he acknowledged in 2004 that the evidence for this "appears not to be... that solid".

The two countries relied heavily on the claims of two Iraqi defectors - a chemical engineer called Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi and an intelligence officer called Maj Muhammad Harith - who said they had first-hand knowledge of Iraq's WMD programme.

Both men later said they had fabricated their evidence because they wanted the allies to invade and oust Saddam.

Two neighbours of the US, Canada and Mexico, refused to support it. Germany and France, two key US allies in Europe, also refused support. Middle Eastern countries which had supported the US against Iraq in the 1990-91 Gulf War, such as Saudi Arabia, did not support its invasion in 2003.

US troops withdrew from Iraq in 2011.

It is estimated that 461,000 people died in Iraq from war-related causes between 2003 and 2011 and that the war cost the US $3 trillion.

"America lost a lot of credibility from this war," says Dr Karin von Hippel, director-general of the Royal United Services Institute think tank.

"You still hear people saying, twenty years later: why do we want to believe American intelligence?"

All because of your false narrative and facking spineless buddy DICK

and save the bandwidth and snoozefests from digging yourself out of this hole. That's called evidence