its old Donald rumsfeld who is the real player this whole Iraq thing is all his planning . Bush cant even spell America let alone run the country . if rumsfeld didn't create Saddam then America would have no excuse to go after him and steal the oil and make bases . i could have told you long before the Iraq study group gave its report that the administration they where going send more troops out there . there not going to leave all that oil behind .
2007-01-03 15:31:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by fraz.s.u.s.s 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes it is,
Rumsfeld has an enormous amount of blood on his hands, after all it was Rummy who also was on the board of a company that sold the nuclear reactors to North Korea that helped them create the fuel for their Nuclear weapons.
It was also Rummy who was very influential back in the Reagan administration that got the deadly poison Aspartame passed by the FDA as being fit for human consumption.
Rumsfeld is responsible for a LOT of death!
I believe it was partly because rumsfeld was involved in selling the sarin gas used on the Kurds that Saddam was only tried (and hung) for the deaths of 148 Iraqis who tried to assinate him. If Saddam had been tried for the other large scale massacres then the whole world would have publicly bourne witness to the dirty deals that Rumsfeld and the US administrations where up to their necks in.
How about watching some other videos? I find the ones taken in early 2001 where Condi Rice and Colin Powell claim that Saddam is not a threat, that Saddam had not re-constituted his WMD programmes or military and that he was successfully contained.
the Bush administration later admitted (before the invasion of Iraq) that it had no further evidence than then, but was looking at the old evidence in a 'new light'
The whole invasion, occupation and subsequent descent into civil war was based on a deliberate and willfull lie.
Rumsfeld was instremental in building Saddam up, turning him into a monster and destroying the monster that he helped create.
Rumsfeld has the blood of millions on his hands!
2007-01-04 02:41:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by kenhallonthenet 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Rumsfeld was the chemical weapons rep that sold Saddam the gas he used against the Kurds. It was what was left from his war with Iran. In return, we sold Iranians armaments and used the money to fund the Contras--a liberal with history on his side is a force to be reckoned with.
Lesser of two evils--enema of the brain!!
2007-01-03 15:28:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by scottyurb 5
·
5⤊
1⤋
That's correct. Rumsfeld met with Saddam. Two can play that game:
Hillary Clinton Kisses Soha Arafat
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9911/11/israel.hillary.02/soha.arafat.hillary.clinton.jpg
2007-01-03 15:25:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by nobody 5
·
1⤊
3⤋
with the aid of fact, on the time, we weren't some distance removed from Iran taking our hostages in 1979. Iraq grew to become into the final enemy of Iran. a similar clarification why we supported Afganistan during that factor era. Russia grew to become into our ultimate enemy and we've been nonetheless interior the chilly conflict. Russia invaded Afganistan, so we supported them as a fashion to combat communist Russia.
2016-11-26 01:59:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
In answer to your question, yes, thats Rumsfeld shaking his hand.
2007-01-03 15:17:31
·
answer #6
·
answered by Haven17 5
·
4⤊
0⤋
Well most of us in Europe knew that years ago What i can`t wait for is when someone manages to digup a photo of when George Bush was borrowing all that money from BinLaden (and i`m sure someone will find something )
What goes round comes round
2007-01-03 20:55:48
·
answer #7
·
answered by keny 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Oh yeah, he and Rummy were best of buddy's when Saddam and Iran were at war.
2007-01-03 15:22:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
This should be a lesson to all leaders whom ponder becoming an evil dictator, and terror supporters. We're your friend, maybe even help you out if we have the same objectives, but screws us around, and we'll kick your *** up through your throat!
2007-01-03 15:19:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
your right in what you say ,the film is common knowledge ,but its interesting how they set these people up in power then turn on them just like bin larden . not so much turn on them but use them as patsy's.
2007-01-03 22:51:35
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋