Failure of Bush Iraq "plan" hands WMD components to terrorists

[endymion]

The security vacuum created by our invasion has led to the theft of a bunch of dual-use nuclear equipment, including enriched uranium. The "yellow cake" uranium is the same stuff that Bush accused Saddam of trying to buy through Nigeria, as a justification for invading Iraq.

I don't need to comment much on this one do I? Think about this the next time you see Bush grin and tell the cameras that America is safer now after the invasion.

It was (false) yellow cake uranium suspicions that supposedly justified our invasion, but securing the nuclear material that we really truly knew to be present at monitored locations in Iraq was a lower priority than securing oil fields, pipelines, and lucrative long-term contracts for American business interests.

Justifications For Invading Iraq

[s]1) WMD, "imminent threat"[/s]

[s]2) al Qaeda, "hard evidence"[/s]

3) financial gain

[web_norah]

Haliburton.

[JMT]

But there werent any WMD in iraq, so no need to worry!

[JMT]

Originally Posted by web_norah

Haliburton.

FPL

[endymion]

I can see you twisting this into those facilities that we had secured and were monitoring before the war becoming active WMD programs. These facilities were intact and were being monitored by the UN until we gave up on that process and invaded.

NOW they are terrorist WMD programs, since we stopped monitoring them so that we could start guzzling oil. We know right exactly where all of the oil is because we're looking for it. Bush and Cheney had the oil reserve maps out before September 11, 2001. We don't know where the nuclear materials are even though we used to before we invaded because we had zero post-invasion plan and because WMD were never the real issue in the first place.

[slamminshaun]

Originally Posted by web_norah

Haliburton.

www.factcheck.org <--true non-partison website that gives preference to neither candidate. Haliburton accusations, simply untrue.

[web_norah]

i dont think Haliburton is entirely false - sorry. i've gone on that website before.

[slamminshaun]

Read it again, here's the quote from that website.

A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president," which is false. Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive

[obby]

;D

[JMT]

Originally Posted by SlamminShaun

[quote author=web_norah link=board=6;threadid=8006;start=0#msg89415 date=1097616262]
Haliburton.

www.factcheck.org <--true non-partison website that gives preference to neither candidate. Haliburton accusations, simply untrue.
[/quote]

they are either too stubborn too look or admit, (i already tried that in a other thread with a detailed article posted in the washington post). i guess its just too easy to spout out a subjective case with zero evidence.