Keep in mind, the No WMDs WAS the narrative after the fact. Pay no attention that the US had sold Iraq WMDs to use against Iran, that Saddam had used gas on the Kurds AND SHOT SCUDS into Saudi Arabia and ISRAEL at the beginning of the war, AND WikiLeaks revealed that Mustard Gas was found.
that was just the pretext, as soon as saddam tried to undermine the petrodollar system (and by extension the Dollar's Global Reserve Currency Status) back in 2000 by selling his oil for euros instead of USD his country was set for "regime-change" by the US.
I keep saying it didn't matter. If you had credible Intel or not so credible Intel that Iraq as a nation who had just attacked another nation was trying to acquire them. Wouldn't you simply remove that threat rather then wait until they do.
The actual facts are Syria, Libya all had WMDs. So do other nations in the region not disclosed. Others may have other nations protection. Where are American bases these at times might have capacity. Iraq had some biological weapons regardless.
The entire non WMDs, was simply a presumed change in policy. Withdraw not. To go back in ISIS. All it did was offer the good cop. Because the bad cop had done that.
Of course conspiracy has seized on it and we have since been flooded with apologists, and phobists. But it's not like it wasn't, inevitable. It was simple causality.
We sold them chemical weapons back in the 80s, but that's not what Colin Powell was talking about when he went in front of Congress to lie about yellowcake uranium.
What I recall was Powell testifying in front of the UN for 3 days. He covered a myriad of topics that occurred during the 90s that Bill Clinton didn't address until he got in impeachment trouble. Attempted assassination of George H. Bush, anti-air craft weapons locking onto US planes, playing hide-n-seek with UN Weapon Inspectors...the WMDs was just a quick media blurb they could show the stupefied masses pictures of so they could nod their heads to understand why the Gulf War was restarting. Which is exactly what this was as he was failing to abide by his agreements to end that war.
It should had been called Gulf War 2, once Saddam was overthrown within the first 3 days declare victory and leave, Bush let the Democrats talk him into "re"building Iraq.
The goalposts of WMDs shifted to fit the narrative. The media was selling war on the pretext of nuclear weapons. SCUDs do not cause "mass destruction", they're ordinance no different from Tomahawks.
Sure, change the subject to a misinformation example and ignore the fact that he launched a WMD at us at the beginning of the invasion WHICH IS THE POINT OF THE WHOLE CONVERSATION!
Stay focused: He... had... W... M... Ds
Do you get it or is your ego not going to allow you to accept that you bought a lie?
Keep in mind, the No WMDs WAS the narrative after the fact. Pay no attention that the US had sold Iraq WMDs to use against Iran, that Saddam had used gas on the Kurds AND SHOT SCUDS into Saudi Arabia and ISRAEL at the beginning of the war, AND WikiLeaks revealed that Mustard Gas was found.
Iraq HAD WMDs.
that was just the pretext, as soon as saddam tried to undermine the petrodollar system (and by extension the Dollar's Global Reserve Currency Status) back in 2000 by selling his oil for euros instead of USD his country was set for "regime-change" by the US.
I keep saying it didn't matter. If you had credible Intel or not so credible Intel that Iraq as a nation who had just attacked another nation was trying to acquire them. Wouldn't you simply remove that threat rather then wait until they do.
The actual facts are Syria, Libya all had WMDs. So do other nations in the region not disclosed. Others may have other nations protection. Where are American bases these at times might have capacity. Iraq had some biological weapons regardless.
The entire non WMDs, was simply a presumed change in policy. Withdraw not. To go back in ISIS. All it did was offer the good cop. Because the bad cop had done that.
Of course conspiracy has seized on it and we have since been flooded with apologists, and phobists. But it's not like it wasn't, inevitable. It was simple causality.
We sold them chemical weapons back in the 80s, but that's not what Colin Powell was talking about when he went in front of Congress to lie about yellowcake uranium.
What I recall was Powell testifying in front of the UN for 3 days. He covered a myriad of topics that occurred during the 90s that Bill Clinton didn't address until he got in impeachment trouble. Attempted assassination of George H. Bush, anti-air craft weapons locking onto US planes, playing hide-n-seek with UN Weapon Inspectors...the WMDs was just a quick media blurb they could show the stupefied masses pictures of so they could nod their heads to understand why the Gulf War was restarting. Which is exactly what this was as he was failing to abide by his agreements to end that war. It should had been called Gulf War 2, once Saddam was overthrown within the first 3 days declare victory and leave, Bush let the Democrats talk him into "re"building Iraq.
The goalposts of WMDs shifted to fit the narrative. The media was selling war on the pretext of nuclear weapons. SCUDs do not cause "mass destruction", they're ordinance no different from Tomahawks.
They're on the official UN weapons list as WMDs and so are Tomahawks.
That's what moving the goalposts means, numbnuts. Just like how "vaccine" got redefined such that vitamin D qualifies as a vaccine now.
YOU'RE the one redefining a WMD into "ordinances", DUMBFUCK!
Sure, change the subject to a misinformation example and ignore the fact that he launched a WMD at us at the beginning of the invasion WHICH IS THE POINT OF THE WHOLE CONVERSATION!
Stay focused: He... had... W... M... Ds
Do you get it or is your ego not going to allow you to accept that you bought a lie?