Bush didn't just lie........

[Freewill]

No administration in the recorded history of time used intelligence to sell their position. Not Clinton when he bombed Serbia for 72 days. Not Obama when he bombed Libya and help create ISIS.

I see we are being facetious here.

Dems, especially Mrs. Clinton who had an inside tract to the intelligence, were just stupid dupes, as they are today. Fooled by the evil genius of GWB. No wait that doesn't work because Bush is stupid, they were fooled by the mega genius of Powell and Chaney.

Really don't know what you are trying to say here. Please be clear.

Never the less the dems had the same intelligence of Bush but they choose just to listen to Bush, what freakin' idiots. Is that the point of your BS?

Wrong, they did not have the same intel as Bush. This has been pointed out quite thoroughly here.

What intelligence do you think that congress needed to not make the decision they made? Sounds like a bunch of back stabbing dems doing the "I was so stupid I was lied into war" dance. BS, everyone knew what Saddam was capable of because HE DID IT.

Bush didn't need to convince the public all he had to do is convince the idiot Democrats.

By lying to them. I will agree that the democrats who voted to go to war are idiots.

Especially Mr.s Clinton who had an inside source? A source which also supported taking Saddam out?

It is not like Saddam actually had used WMD. (Kurds)

No one ever denied that. The assertion that he still had these WMDs 15 years later was the real issue.

So we know he used them, thus we know he had them. WMD were found but not in the quality that would ever convince those with BDS.

It is not like Saddam attacked his neighbors. (Kuwait, Iran)

Yes, and the US supported the invasion Of Iran and the Kuwauit invasion was already dealt with. Remember the Gulf War.

The point is that he was still a threat. Kind of like a rapist who would rape again if given the chance. Oh right his kids were rapists.

It is not like the rest of the Arab world was ecstatic to get rid of the Butcher of Baghdad. (for the idiot dems, Saddam didn't sell meat thus getting that nick name)

There are other ways toget rid of people and most of the Arab world was opposed to the invasion.

Were they really? Do you think Bush would have went against the Sudia Arabia? Why didn't any of them raise a hand against the US? They wanted Saddam gone and went through the motion of protest.

It is not like his sons didn't have rape rooms.

I don't remember this as a reason to go to war.

It is not like Saddam had not created an environmental disaster when he was kicked out of Kuwait.

So are you suggesting we should kill/invade all those who create enviromental diasters.

It is not like Saddam wasn't attacking the US in the no fly zone.

Saddam saw the NFZs as illegal. Even the UN did not support it. Not one human life was killed by Saddam shooting at the aircraft.

Ok, then if Iran starts shooting at our planes over the gulf you are OK with that if they just don't hit one?

None of that actually happened it was just GWB lying. Right. Gottaja.

None of this were the reasons Bush gave to go to war with Iraq. How about you stop all these strawman arguments and actually debate what Bush and his administration actually said.

Removing Saddam certainly was the objective. The reasons were what you are arguing over. Was he a threat? Yes. Did 30 countries join the US in getting rid of him? Yes. Did the dems who voted for war immediately stab the US in the back. Absolutely.

Here let this be a reminder:



"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah cause those democrats are not wagging the dog are they? Oh wait.. Isn't OBAMA the POTUS?

Example?

Obama was for the war to get votes before he was against the war to get votes before he was for the "real" war in afgainstan after he got elected before he was against the war bush started in the middle east, before he was for the war in 12 other countries, before... wait... I forget are the democrats for or again war now?

From October 26th, 2002. - Barack Obama

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

ROFL so barry was against the war and against Saddam we'd be better off without him but should only go in with "strong international support" ... which we did. So he was good with it, this before he had a vote... this before he was a senator. But then when he was a Senator he voted for it. Go figure.

I'm confused here. You are talking about Obama but you put up a Hilary video.

I believe she's next in line for the monarchy. If you guys hate Bush for this endless war so much... does that mean you won't be voting for Hillary?

 

[Tuatara]

Example?

Obama was for the war to get votes before he was against the war to get votes before he was for the "real" war in afgainstan after he got elected before he was against the war bush started in the middle east, before he was for the war in 12 other countries, before... wait... I forget are the democrats for or again war now?

From October 26th, 2002. - Barack Obama

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

ROFL so barry was against the war and against Saddam we'd be better off without him but should only go in with "strong international support" ... which we did. So he was good with it, this before he had a vote... this before he was a senator. But then when he was a Senator he voted for it. Go figure.

I'm confused here. You are talking about Obama but you put up a Hilary video.

I believe she's next in line for the monarchy. If you guys hate Bush for this endless war so much... does that mean you won't be voting for Hillary?

I would never vote for a democrat except Kucunich. That is if I could vote. I'm Canadian.

 

[LeftofLeft]

So, help us understand exactly what steps Clinton took to prevent another attack following the WTC attack that occurred under his watch in February 1993.

Bill Clinton's Anti-Terrorism Measures

• Former president offers approach for terrorism fight
• Clinton proposes huge police buildup
• 1996 In Review: U.S. Fought Terrorism At Home And Abroad
• The Covert Hunt for bin Laden
• Bill Clinton Terror Rumor Debunked
• Clinton at UN focuses on Terrorism
• Clinton Urges Anti-terrorism Action
• Clinton seeks $1 billion to fight terrorism
• House approves $29 billion anti-terror bill
• Clinton Seeks Anti-Terrorism Aid
• Clinton signs airport security measures into law
• Clinton Targets Terrorism
• Clinton's Letter to Congress on Freezing of bin Ladin Assets
• Combatting Terrorism
• Former envoys : Clinton gave Taliban evidence on bin Laden
• President Clinton's Speech on Terrorist Attacks
• President Swears to Use 'All Tools' Against Terrorism
• U.S. Froze $254 Million In Taliban Cash in 1999
• White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security
  The DOT Status Report
• White House Fact Sheet on Counter-terrorism Measures
• Don't blame it on Bill Clinton
• Clinton's Compartments
• The Usual Suspect
• Clinton Backs Cyber-Terror Warnings
• 1996 Anti-terrorism Act
• Republicans Watered Down 1996 Clinton Anti-Terrorism Bill
  Thanks to Lott & Hatch
• Clinton backs tech war on terror

Most of these links are "would have done" or "wanted to". If Clinton Admin had been successful, then there would have been no need for Cinton Admin NSA head Sandy Berger to go in and destroy documents during the 9-11 hearings; nor would there have been the need for Jaimie Gorelick to be granted immunity from testimony on her 1995 memo that hindered intelligence sharing among law enforcement agencies.

 

[RKMBrown]

Obama was for the war to get votes before he was against the war to get votes before he was for the "real" war in afgainstan after he got elected before he was against the war bush started in the middle east, before he was for the war in 12 other countries, before... wait... I forget are the democrats for or again war now?

From October 26th, 2002. - Barack Obama

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

ROFL so barry was against the war and against Saddam we'd be better off without him but should only go in with "strong international support" ... which we did. So he was good with it, this before he had a vote... this before he was a senator. But then when he was a Senator he voted for it. Go figure.

I'm confused here. You are talking about Obama but you put up a Hilary video.

I believe she's next in line for the monarchy. If you guys hate Bush for this endless war so much... does that mean you won't be voting for Hillary?

I would never vote for a democrat except Kucunich. That is if I could vote. I'm Canadian.

Yeah he's ok. He's more conservative than Bush was.

 

[Contumacious]

No administration in the recorded history of time used intelligence to sell their position. Not Clinton when he bombed Serbia for 72 days. Not Obama when he bombed Libya and help create ISIS.

I see we are being facetious here.

Dems, especially Mrs. Clinton who had an inside tract to the intelligence, were just stupid dupes, as they are today. Fooled by the evil genius of GWB. No wait that doesn't work because Bush is stupid, they were fooled by the mega genius of Powell and Chaney.

Really don't know what you are trying to say here. Please be clear.

Never the less the dems had the same intelligence of Bush but they choose just to listen to Bush, what freakin' idiots. Is that the point of your BS?

Wrong, they did not have the same intel as Bush. This has been pointed out quite thoroughly here.

What intelligence do you think that congress needed to not make the decision they made? Sounds like a bunch of back stabbing dems doing the "I was so stupid I was lied into war" dance. BS, everyone knew what Saddam was capable of because HE DID IT.

Bush didn't need to convince the public all he had to do is convince the idiot Democrats.

By lying to them. I will agree that the democrats who voted to go to war are idiots.

Especially Mr.s Clinton who had an inside source? A source which also supported taking Saddam out?

It is not like Saddam actually had used WMD. (Kurds)

No one ever denied that. The assertion that he still had these WMDs 15 years later was the real issue.

So we know he used them, thus we know he had them. WMD were found but not in the quality that would ever convince those with BDS.

It is not like Saddam attacked his neighbors. (Kuwait, Iran)

Yes, and the US supported the invasion Of Iran and the Kuwauit invasion was already dealt with. Remember the Gulf War.

The point is that he was still a threat. Kind of like a rapist who would rape again if given the chance. Oh right his kids were rapists.

It is not like the rest of the Arab world was ecstatic to get rid of the Butcher of Baghdad. (for the idiot dems, Saddam didn't sell meat thus getting that nick name)

There are other ways toget rid of people and most of the Arab world was opposed to the invasion.

Were they really? Do you think Bush would have went against the Sudia Arabia? Why didn't any of them raise a hand against the US? They wanted Saddam gone and went through the motion of protest.

It is not like his sons didn't have rape rooms.

I don't remember this as a reason to go to war.

It is not like Saddam had not created an environmental disaster when he was kicked out of Kuwait.

So are you suggesting we should kill/invade all those who create enviromental diasters.

It is not like Saddam wasn't attacking the US in the no fly zone.

Saddam saw the NFZs as illegal. Even the UN did not support it. Not one human life was killed by Saddam shooting at the aircraft.

Ok, then if Iran starts shooting at our planes over the gulf you are OK with that if they just don't hit one?

None of that actually happened it was just GWB lying. Right. Gottaja.

None of this were the reasons Bush gave to go to war with Iraq. How about you stop all these strawman arguments and actually debate what Bush and his administration actually said.

Removing Saddam certainly was the objective. The reasons were what you are arguing over. Was he a threat? Yes. Did 30 countries join the US in getting rid of him? Yes. Did the dems who voted for war immediately stab the US in the back. Absolutely.

Here let this be a reminder:



"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

BOTH parties are controlled by the Military Industrial Complex , warmongers and interventionists.


ALWAYS looking for pretexts to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations.


.

 

[GWV5903]

Or should we go back to post WWII and take a look at the Israel idea? Or maybe we go back thousands of years and blame that slave girl who begat the islamics.

In all fairness they where probably not alive during these times...

And Bush dealt with the Clinton fiasco, and Clinton dealth with the Bush sr fiasco, and Bush sr dealt with the Reagan fiasco, who dealt with the Carter fiasco.. oh yeah that's where this nightmare really started... Carter.

They cannot comprehend this, it's way over their heads...

 

[Kondor3]

And now we have conservatives who want to send Americans back to Iraq to again pointlessly fight and die in the failed, illegal war GWB lied his way into...

The alternative is to let it alone, and allow a modern-day resurrected Caliphate to spawn and to take root.

Are you willing to allow that to happen?

It is not the US's decision to allow that to happen. If the people of Iraq said they want the help of the US then and only then should the US decide to go.

Fair enough.

And when the request for ground troops comes to the White House?

Will you support the Second Expedition - the one designed to slaughter ISIS and destroy its lairs?

 

[GWV5903]

If the people of Iraq said they want the help of the US then and only then should the US decide to go.

You need to read more than one source...

They are divided and have been from day one on when our troops leave...

History is very clear, you need to read both opinions...

 

[GWV5903]

You have to understand these are their EVIL twins, they where on tremendous amounts of medication and will deny to this day they ever made these statements...




"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!

 

[Kondor3]

And now we have conservatives who want to send Americans back to Iraq to again pointlessly fight and die in the failed, illegal war GWB lied his way into...

The alternative is to let it alone, and allow a modern-day resurrected Caliphate to spawn and to take root.

Are you willing to allow that to happen?

It is not the US's decision to allow that to happen. If the people of Iraq said they want the help of the US then and only then should the US decide to go.

And that decision should clearly be to not go.

It's time to end the insanity started by GWB, it's time to learn the hard, tragic lessons of the past, and it's time to resolve to never again make those same mistakes.

Just to be clear...

You favor non-intervention, even under circumstances that would allow a resurrected and ultimately dangerous Caliphate to materialize and to entrench itself in that region?

Circumstances that would eventually lead to a culture-war that our children or grandchildren or great-grandchildren would be obliged to fight, because we could not bring ourselves to de-fang the serpent now?

Do you see such a Caliphate as a realistic possibility?

Do you see such a cultural war as a realistic possibility for the future?

 

[Kondor3]

GWB lied about WMDs – there were none, by the Bush administration's own admission...

Yep.

...GWB lied about Saddam posing a threat to his neighbors and people – the NFZs were working perfectly and as intended...

Yep.

...GWB lied about Saddam being 'involved' in 9/11 – he wasn't...

Yep.

...These are the facts of our recent history: two failed, illegal wars, thousands of Americans killed and wounded, and conservatives defending GWB's lies for purely partisan reasons, advocating that more Americans be killed and wounded in more pointless, meaningless war.

Yep.

What has any of that got to do with whether or not present-day ISIS constitutes a sufficient current or future threat so as to warrant US military intervention?

 

[Theowl32]

And now we have conservatives who want to send Americans back to Iraq to again pointlessly fight and die in the failed, illegal war GWB lied his way into...

The alternative is to let it alone, and allow a modern-day resurrected Caliphate to spawn and to take root.

Are you willing to allow that to happen?

It is not the US's decision to allow that to happen. If the people of Iraq said they want the help of the US then and only then should the US decide to go.

And that decision should clearly be to not go.

It's time to end the insanity started by GWB, it's time to learn the hard, tragic lessons of the past, and it's time to resolve to never again make those same mistakes.

Just to be clear...

You favor non-intervention, even under circumstances that would allow a resurrected and ultimately dangerous Caliphate to materialize and to entrench itself in that region?

Circumstances that would eventually lead to a culture-war that our children or grandchildren or great-grandchildren would be obliged to fight, because we could not bring ourselves to de-fang the serpent now?

Do you see such a Caliphate as a realistic possibility?

Do you see such a cultural war as a realistic possibility for the future?

They are double talkers. They do not stand for anything.

They say they hate torturerers, and are on the side of the poor and down trodden and they wish Saddam was still in power torturing and oppressing. Yet they will claim they do not want that.

Every single one of their so called "stances" are hypocritical. All of them.

 

[Kondor3]

And now we have conservatives who want to send Americans back to Iraq to again pointlessly fight and die in the failed, illegal war GWB lied his way into...

The alternative is to let it alone, and allow a modern-day resurrected Caliphate to spawn and to take root.

Are you willing to allow that to happen?

It is not the US's decision to allow that to happen. If the people of Iraq said they want the help of the US then and only then should the US decide to go.

And that decision should clearly be to not go.

It's time to end the insanity started by GWB, it's time to learn the hard, tragic lessons of the past, and it's time to resolve to never again make those same mistakes.

Just to be clear...

You favor non-intervention, even under circumstances that would allow a resurrected and ultimately dangerous Caliphate to materialize and to entrench itself in that region?

Circumstances that would eventually lead to a culture-war that our children or grandchildren or great-grandchildren would be obliged to fight, because we could not bring ourselves to de-fang the serpent now?

Do you see such a Caliphate as a realistic possibility?

Do you see such a cultural war as a realistic possibility for the future?

They are double talkers. They do not stand for anything.

They say they hate torturerers, and are on the side of the poor and down trodden and they wish Saddam was still in power torturing and oppressing. Yet they will claim they do not want that.

Every single one of their so called "stances" are hypocritical. All of them.

Hell, most of us would settle for a straight answer...

 

[Faun]

And now we have conservatives who want to send Americans back to Iraq to again pointlessly fight and die in the failed, illegal war GWB lied his way into...

The alternative is to let it alone, and allow a modern-day resurrected Caliphate to spawn and to take root.

Are you willing to allow that to happen?

It is not the US's decision to allow that to happen. If the people of Iraq said they want the help of the US then and only then should the US decide to go.

And that decision should clearly be to not go.

It's time to end the insanity started by GWB, it's time to learn the hard, tragic lessons of the past, and it's time to resolve to never again make those same mistakes.

Just to be clear...

You favor non-intervention, even under circumstances that would allow a resurrected and ultimately dangerous Caliphate to materialize and to entrench itself in that region?

Circumstances that would eventually lead to a culture-war that our children or grandchildren or great-grandchildren would be obliged to fight, because we could not bring ourselves to de-fang the serpent now?

Do you see such a Caliphate as a realistic possibility?

Do you see such a cultural war as a realistic possibility for the future?

They are double talkers. They do not stand for anything.

They say they hate torturerers, and are on the side of the poor and down trodden and they wish Saddam was still in power torturing and oppressing. Yet they will claim they do not want that.

Every single one of their so called "stances" are hypocritical. All of them.

Whereas righties wanted us to take that job over for him.

 

[Kondor3]

...Whereas righties wanted us to take that job over for him.

Hardly.

Things like Abu Gharib and Guantanamo were problematic for all Americans... Left, Right and Center.

 

[Freewill]

30 countries, I guess without Russia and China it really isn't the colilition you would like. And even if the whole world joined in I am sure you would say that Martians didn't support the illegal war.

 

[Freewill]

Yeah cause those democrats are not wagging the dog are they? Oh wait.. Isn't OBAMA the POTUS?

Example?

Obama was for the war to get votes before he was against the war to get votes before he was for the "real" war in afgainstan after he got elected before he was against the war bush started in the middle east, before he was for the war in 12 other countries, before... wait... I forget are the democrats for or again war now? Which of Obama's buddies are benefiting from these wars? Who was Hillary giving access to military secrets again? Who's been sending checks to the clintons?

Obama loudly opposed the war.....where were you?

Obama has had to deal with the Islamic upheaval caused by Bush. He had avoided using boots on the ground and nation building to solve his problems

Now, Clinton staged attacks on bin Laden were labeled by Republicans as a diversion to take attention away from more important topics like blow job impeachment

Show where Obama has done anything like that

He opposed it before he had a vote. Not really he gave a "unless" we get strong help clause. Meh.. then when he became a senator he vote for it multiple times. Obama owns this now. He's been POTUS for 7years. Bush is long gone.

Hat part of "dumb war" don't you understand?

I understand that part where guys like you who were more then happy to stay home belittle those who volunteered and went.

 

[Freewill]

Yeah cause those democrats are not wagging the dog are they? Oh wait.. Isn't OBAMA the POTUS?

Example?

Obama was for the war to get votes before he was against the war to get votes before he was for the "real" war in afgainstan after he got elected before he was against the war bush started in the middle east, before he was for the war in 12 other countries, before... wait... I forget are the democrats for or again war now? Which of Obama's buddies are benefiting from these wars? Who was Hillary giving access to military secrets again? Who's been sending checks to the clintons?

Obama loudly opposed the war.....where were you?

Obama has had to deal with the Islamic upheaval caused by Bush. He had avoided using boots on the ground and nation building to solve his problems

Now, Clinton staged attacks on bin Laden were labeled by Republicans as a diversion to take attention away from more important topics like blow job impeachment

Show where Obama has done anything like that

Obama avoided boots on the ground? Really? Is your memory that faulty that you don't remember the Afghanistan surge that Obama said himself was a failure? That HE was a failure in Afghanistan? Far more troops killed under Obama in Afghanistan then ever was under Bush.

Afghanistan?

You mean the war Bush forgot about when he invaded Iraq? The war where Bush officially abandoned the war on terror?

No Jake, Afghanistan where you said Obama didn't put boots on the ground. Not telling the truth or just uninformed? The war that the liberals loved and Obama lost. GWB had kicked out the Taliban there was really nothing else to accomplish. So Obama had his surge and he admits it was for nothing.

 

[The Rabbi]

Example?

Obama was for the war to get votes before he was against the war to get votes before he was for the "real" war in afgainstan after he got elected before he was against the war bush started in the middle east, before he was for the war in 12 other countries, before... wait... I forget are the democrats for or again war now? Which of Obama's buddies are benefiting from these wars? Who was Hillary giving access to military secrets again? Who's been sending checks to the clintons?

Obama loudly opposed the war.....where were you?

Obama has had to deal with the Islamic upheaval caused by Bush. He had avoided using boots on the ground and nation building to solve his problems

Now, Clinton staged attacks on bin Laden were labeled by Republicans as a diversion to take attention away from more important topics like blow job impeachment

Show where Obama has done anything like that

He opposed it before he had a vote. Not really he gave a "unless" we get strong help clause. Meh.. then when he became a senator he vote for it multiple times. Obama owns this now. He's been POTUS for 7years. Bush is long gone.

Hat part of "dumb war" don't you understand?

I understand that part where guys like you who were more then happy to stay home belittle those who volunteered and went.

I understand the part where the Left is butthurt that all their dire predictions of a "quagmire" failed to materialize and Bush won the war, despite Democrats declarign the war was lost as soon as it ceased being popular.