It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by mikerussellus
Lets bring back George W. Bush for a third term.
Sarah Palin could be his V.P.
Bush/Palin ticket!
Who cares about the Nobel Prize?
It's liberals handing our prizes to other liberals.
It's a joke. Now more than ever.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by StinkyFeet
Please don't use out of context arguments to make a point. Hitler was not Saddam Hussein, not even close, and to compare the two is really funny.
I will agree that Saddam was a problem, but let me ask you a question.
Where was George durring the genocide in Rwanda? Why did he not, "remove" the dictators there?
~Keeper
Originally posted by sinesolis
The Bush Administration is the reason our country is in the state that it is in currently.
Do not forget this.
In my opinion the man deserves nothing but the contempt he has earned.
Originally posted by sr_robert1
reply to post by tothetenthpower
Well, obama supports abortion, so I wonder how many people have died over the last 30+years of abortion and how many will continue to die once he passes "healthcare" with tax-dollar funded abortions.
Originally posted by StinkyFeet
4. He worked to concentrate terrorist fighting into Afghan and Iraq, so the rest of the world was more safe from Terrorism. In fact, he kept our country safe from any major terrorist attack for 7 years and drove the numbers of attacks around the world down.
5. He rid the world of the evil dictator Sadaam Hussein.
6. He set the people in Afghanistan free from the hands of the Taliban and their restrictive and ridiculous laws that are harmful to women.
[edit on 10-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military's first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two, according to a military report released by the Pentagon.
The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said. The assessment of the al Qaeda connection and the insistence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were two primary elements in the Bush administration's arguments in favor of going to war with Iraq.
The Pentagon's report also contradicts then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said in September 2002 that the CIA provided "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are, in fact, al Qaeda in Iraq."
Originally posted by StinkyFeet
reply to post by tothetenthpower
Well wouldn't you agree that going to war with a dictator and murderer like Hitler would be a move toward peace? That is much more for peace and justice than to let him indiscriminately kill millions of innocent jews.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Sorry Liberals, but I have to interject a little "fact" for the purpose of education and to "deny ignorance".
The Iraq war was NOT illegal, period.
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter.
The UN chief had warned the US and its allies a week before the invasion in March 2003 that military action would violate the UN charter. But he has hitherto refrained from using the damning word "illegal". Both Mr Blair and the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, claim that Saddam Hussein was in breach of security council resolution 1441 passed late in 2002, and of previous resolutions calling on him to give up weapons of mass destruction. France and other countries claimed these were insufficient.
No immediate comment was available from the White House late last night, but American officials have defended the war as an act of self-defence, allowed under the UN charter, in view of Saddam Hussein's supposed plans to build weapons of mass destruction. However, last September, Mr Annan issued a stern critique of the notion of pre-emptive self-defence, saying it would lead to a breakdown in international order.
Mr Annan last night said that there should have been a second UN resolution specifically authorising war against Iraq. Mr Blair and Mr Straw tried to secure this second resolution early in 2003 in the run-up to the war but were unable to convince a sceptical security council. Mr Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to determine what those consequences were.