Question: What State Did Sen. Hillary Clinton Represent in 2002?

[on point]

128. It is not negative evidence Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. it was the lack of positive evidence

It was obvious Bush was lying about Iraq at the time.

Everything he said was a transparent lie. A secular socialist dictator somehow linked up with a radical religious group that would challenge his rule?? What a farce.

Chemical Weapons? Scott Ritter plainly showed these did not exist at the time. One point he made was these all had a half life of a few years, and Saddam had no ability to manufacture new since first Iraq war. Anything left over was worthless as a weapon. Real time in the news then.

The UN team said, If you (Bush) know where the WMD are, tell us. But every time they did, there was nothing there. Bush had to launch the war before the UN basically said Bush assertions were a lie. He was running out of time and couldn't wait.

I knew Bush wanted to attack Iraq BEFORE 9/11 when he promoted a dead American pilot from first Iraq war and declared him a POW. Saddam said, come look for him, we will help. He is dead. But rather than do that, Bush said no, and just went on to use the already dead pilot as a propaganda piece. Guess what, once Bush invaded Iraq, he never went to look for the pilot, but quietly declared him dead, just as Saddam had said.


No the evidence was everywhere the Iraq war was a fraud. Millions around the world knew about the Bush Iraq lies. It was OBVIOUS to anyone not blinded by propaganda.

Hillary failed as a leader when she was needed most, I suspect to help ambition, and it cost this country trillions, the lives of service people, and the lives of the Iraq people, and the ISIS problem today is a direct rsult.

We don't need more such failure from leadership.