You just can't stop stepping in it, can you? Ok, I guess I have time to expose your idiocy one more time.
So when I give facts now they are irrelevant?!? lol.. typical. Intel failures or no that WAS the intel thanks to people you voted for, liberal dems like yourself. (Remember, the SAME people who voted for the war in the first place. The same people with access to the SAME intel and came to the SAME conclusions as Bush. The same people who for the mostpart continue to fund the war.) But no, in your twisted crusade it had to be Dubya. I'm still waiting for an impeachment buddy. 
I'm not sure what your point is b/c I'm having a difficult time making sense of your grammar.
Suffice it to say, there was mixed intel on some of the WMD points. Some for it. Some against it.
So why did Bush always claim the evidence was a slam dunk favoring WMDs in Iraq?
That's a lie of omission.
And for the purposes of whether Iraq had WMDs constituting a threat against the US, well, the inspections on the Ground in Iraq pretty much did away with that speculative conjecture, didn't they?
Once again I am forced to repeat myself for the doofus you are. WMD's being moved to Syria and Jordan BY IRAQ is not the same as those countries just "having" them in the first place.
Oh, so Syria and Jordan were just unaware of the WMDs that were moved enmasse into the respective countries.
Who secured those WMDs? Or are they still floating around? Isn't that one of the precepts of the War of Terror? Secure all WMDS so they don't fall into the hands of evil?
Coincidentally, you've just undercut your "Al Qaeda was in Iraq" argument. Think about it.
It was on Saddams hands and a calculated move. And since when was Saddam NOT a problem? He should have been deposed years ago. Do we let one of the worst dictators just slide?
First of all, you need a history lesson as to who was one of the worst dictators....Hussein was a pimp.
Should we have backed off so he could, once again, start srewing with inspectors and subverting their efforts?? That was his pattern.. US gets serious, he starts cooperating. The moment the UN takes over or we step back he's back at his shenanigans again. I suppose you think "Oh well let's just give him a another chance or two" after he'd already blown through a dozen or so. How many UN resolutions does he have to violate before.. someone.. does.. anything? . . . How many acts of war does he need to commit before we, ahem, "give him the boot?" Do we let him pursue weapons capabilities?? Do we wait until he pulls another 91 or worse?? Now we're trying to keep Iran out of the Nuclear fold and you would have rather have us dealing with an equally threatening and hostile Iraq?? I can see you won't be leading a foreign affair subcommittee or meeting with world leaders anytime soon, thankfully.
Hahahaha. How exactly was Hussein a threat to the US?
What acts of war? You mean the illegal impostion of illegal no fly zones over Iraq? That's an act of war. But that's not Hussein.
You use the same exact pre-emptive war justifications that Hitler used for invading Poland. Do you know that? You do now.
THe UN is a deliberative body comprised of many countries. If the UN wanted to authorize an attack of Iraq it could have.
In your warped mind and universe, you think the speedbumps in life should be nuked. You're a raving fool.
All those countries agreed he had WMD's. It's a fact (although coming from me I'm sure you CHOOSE not to believe it.) Show me where I said they supported action by US forces??!? Did I?!? Of course not. But in your fantasyland loose and obscure associations are plenty.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say again but the intel you refer to was conflicted yet passed off as a slam dunk by Bush and his cohorts.
And as I've already pointed out, those doctored ESTIMATES were soundly crushed by the scientific findings of the WMD inspectors ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ SCOURING THE COUNTRY WITH UNNANOUNCED INSPECTIONS.
Do you see that now?
And let's say for the sake of argument that the Iraqi people had a "right to defend themselves" from our invasion. Than exactly what groups were blowing up civilians across the nation? Are you saying the people killing allied forces were defending themselves from our invasion and the same people who were deciding to slaughter each other for no reason? No, you moron. I will clarify.
Iraqi civilians didn't attack allied forces to "defend their nation" lol.. that one still makes me laugh. Terrorists, radical Islamic militants, groups killing to establish the next regime, etc. had the blood on their hands. These are the same people murdering troops and civilians alike. Oh no, but it can only be BUSH'S fault, right? hahahahaah, jesus.
Have you ever heard of the Sunnis and Shia people making up the Iraq population? I didn't think so. B/c your explanation borders on nonsense.
See, the Sunni and the Shia are incompatible on ethnic grounds. Hussein kept a lid on the nascent civil war.
The US's illegal invasion removed that stop-gap measure uncorking a civil war.
Not only did the US methodically slaughter civilians, it unleashed a civil war.
The US is responsible for all of those deaths b/c but for the illegal invasion, those people are still alive.
Did you get that?
The UN is not a world gov't. Frankly, the UN wouldn't even exist if it weren't for our support (and what a tragedy that would be considering they do SOOOOOOO much to keep world peace 
Our NFZ's were just as legal as every term of surrender, concession, or spoil of war throughout the history of the world. Read that again since it didn't seem to stick the first 3 times I've said it. The surrendering country (and in this case, the aggressor) has to live with it, period.
As a founding member of the UN, I would say that it would not exist without our support. Which makes your position even more untenable. Your boy Bush blew off the UN and attacked IRaq without authorization, thus the whole illegal thing.
It's hard for the UN to maintain its mission of peace when cocksuckers like Bush keep undermining its authority. Do you see how that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for the UN's failure? Of course you don't.
Hulk knows smasssssssssh.
Victory in Iraq some 20 years ago is not license for the victors to do as they fucking please. The terms of surrender were the terms of surrender.
Hulk smassssssssssssssssh surrender.....
You've tried and failed to blame a just war that we've won on one man who had the support of the very people you continue to support. Might as well blame yourself, genius.
Yes, the 700,000 dead Iraqis continue to support Bush. Thank you Mr. President for killing us and raping our country!
You must really be miserable. Reality just can't reach you, can it? Bush isn't a mass murdering criminal. There will be no impeachment or criminal proceedings. USA won another war (yawn).. Killed another world-class A-hole.. on to the next line item. But I get it. Arguing with a blind and crusading drone is pointless. I can lead a fat guy to a treadmill but I can't...
But for Bush's order, 100s of thousands of Iraqis are still alive today.
Bush is a mass murderer and you support his Nazi-like destruction.
So much for destroying any of my arguments, now aren't you late for a peace rally or does crying to Getbig 23hrs a day about how horrible it is to be an American take priority over your social life?
I destroyed your arguments with proof, logic and consistency. Since those things are foreign to your 'Hulk Smash' approach, you don't even recognize when you've lost.
Trust me, you lost. Not just the arguments either, you've also given up any claim you may have to your humanity.
