Democrats Perception Of Saddam/iraq Before Gwb...so Will They Do The Same With Isis??

[healthmyths]

The point is Murtha was being specific about those involved in killing civilians in Haditha and was not calling the majority of our soldiers cold blooded killers, (and also not the light sentence handed down by the US Military in the case).

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/26/world/middleeast/26haditha.html

MADE no difference to the enemy! Stupid people making statements that the enemy takes totally out of context prolonged the Iraq war as the studies have show!
WHY in the hell would ANY one criticize the military planning KNOWING full well that the enemy loves to hear those words!

Up till Bush there was a "unwritten law" called "we must stop partisan politics at the water’s edge.”

Does polarization in domestic politics affect foreign policy as well?
There is a long-standing belief that it should not.

A classic statement of that view can be found in the widely cited words of a leading Republican senator in the early days of the Cold War. Speaking in 1947, Sen. Arthur Vandenberg(Mich.), the influential chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, provided key support to Democratic President Harry S. Truman and admonished his colleagues that “we must stop partisan politics at the water’s edge.”

And in practice, when it comes to military intervention, both the urgency of events and rally-round-the-flag effects are often conducive to wider support within Congress and among the general public.

Thus Gallup has found that in 10 conflicts over the past two decades, initial public approval averaged 68 percent.

Iraq provides a dramatic case in point.

At first the intervention received broad support.
On Oct. 10-11, 2002, the Senate and the House passed resolutions authorizing President George W. Bush to use armed force in Iraq.

The measure received overwhelming GOP backing, although a majority of Senate Democrats also voted in favor (29-21), with most presidential aspirants (Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Joseph R. Biden Jr. and John F. Kerry) voting yes.

There was stronger Democratic opposition in the House, but nearly 40 percent of House Democrats did support the resolution. Public opinion was favorable as well. Less than a month before the outbreak of war, a Gallup poll found 59 percent of the public supporting military action, and shortly after the start of the conflict on March 20, 2003, a Pew poll found 72 percent of the public describing the use of force as the right decision.

With time, rising casualties, no clear end in sight, and sharply polarized views of President George W. Bush, opinion about the Iraq war shifted, becoming less favorable and increasingly polarized.
The extent of partisan differences was stunningly apparent in a New York Times-CBS poll of delegates to the 2008 Democratic and Republican national conventions.
On the question of whether the United States “did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq,” 80 percent of Republican delegates and 70 percent of Republican voters agreed. In stark contrast,

only 14 percent of Democratic voters responded positively and just 2 percent of Democratic delegates did.
Politics stops at the water 8217 s edge Not recently. - The Washington Post

NOW do you understand WHY these quotes were so disgusting then??
So much for the "water's edge"!!!

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

So much for Sen. Arthur Vandenberg (A Republican!!!) support of TRUMAN a Democrat and the President!!!

"we must stop partisan politics at the water’s edge.”

America's enemies abroad only had to wait for you and your ilk to fabricate false narratives and to repeat them endlessly in the echo-chamber. The Iraqi people didn't need Murtha's accusations to be outraged at the massacre. I'm sure the Haditha Killing were brought up in the Iraq government when debating the immunity portion of the SOFA.

Vietnam provides a example to rebut your claim of an "unwritten law" called "we must stop partisan politics at the water’s edge.”

You know I AGREE about Vietnam! And it was Democrat President that was being DAMNED by the idiots like Kerry!
No question when you have the Jane Fonda's the Kerry "Ghengis Khan... testicles..." there was NOT a recognition of the "water's edge"!

Whether a Dem/GOP WE CAN"T attack our OWN military as Kerry,Murtha,et.al. did!
YES I know as many people did there WERE bad soldiers. NOT the RULE though as Obama/Kerry/et.al. make it sound like!
It was totally stupid to take exceptions as Haditha, Abu Ghrib,etc. as the RULE happened all the time! But politicians like Durbin, etc.
with the totally complicit MSM!

Republicans and Democrats in Congress both roundly criticized President Johnson on his Vietnam policy.

Kerry didn't testify until 1971 it was more of a damnation of war not Johnson/Nixon. Fonda didn't visit North Vietnam until 1972.

It took more than a year after the incident before anyone heard of Haditha.

There is a substantial difference between criticizing a President's policy and calling the troops in harms way murderers.

Here is an excerpt from Kerry’s testimony on April 22nd, 1971.

"They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

That is a helluva lot more than a damnation of war. Of course Kerry was preparing to run for Congress in a very liberal state at the time.

The number of Americans KIA and WIA during 1971 was greater than that of 1965, the first year of ground combat for U.S. infantry units. That toll also easily surpasses the total number of Gis KIA in Afghanistan over 10 years. The highest medals for valor that year include 7 Medals of Honor, 31 Distinguished Service Crosses, 3 Navy Crosses and 2 Air Force Crosses.

You don't suppose his condemnation of the troops encouraged the enemy do you?

Jane Fonda visit to North Vietnam in July 1972
Direct U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973.

This traitor was aiding and abetting those that were still killing and wounding American troops for over another year.

My point was Kerry et.al. used these exceptional situations to elevate their political positions. That is totally despicable!
I don't fault anyone for criticizing policies but to criticize any war using our military as the vehicle is traitorous behavior!
It is not called for and I am 100% confident that some people on this forum be they Vietnam/Iraq or other conflict the majority are like me totally disgusted these idiots received press coverage and now two of the idiots are working for us and should have never been in their positions!

 

[BlindBoo]

The point is Murtha was being specific about those involved in killing civilians in Haditha and was not calling the majority of our soldiers cold blooded killers, (and also not the light sentence handed down by the US Military in the case).

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/26/world/middleeast/26haditha.html

MADE no difference to the enemy! Stupid people making statements that the enemy takes totally out of context prolonged the Iraq war as the studies have show!
WHY in the hell would ANY one criticize the military planning KNOWING full well that the enemy loves to hear those words!

Up till Bush there was a "unwritten law" called "we must stop partisan politics at the water’s edge.”

Does polarization in domestic politics affect foreign policy as well?
There is a long-standing belief that it should not.

A classic statement of that view can be found in the widely cited words of a leading Republican senator in the early days of the Cold War. Speaking in 1947, Sen. Arthur Vandenberg(Mich.), the influential chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, provided key support to Democratic President Harry S. Truman and admonished his colleagues that “we must stop partisan politics at the water’s edge.”

And in practice, when it comes to military intervention, both the urgency of events and rally-round-the-flag effects are often conducive to wider support within Congress and among the general public.

Thus Gallup has found that in 10 conflicts over the past two decades, initial public approval averaged 68 percent.

Iraq provides a dramatic case in point.

At first the intervention received broad support.
On Oct. 10-11, 2002, the Senate and the House passed resolutions authorizing President George W. Bush to use armed force in Iraq.

The measure received overwhelming GOP backing, although a majority of Senate Democrats also voted in favor (29-21), with most presidential aspirants (Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Joseph R. Biden Jr. and John F. Kerry) voting yes.

There was stronger Democratic opposition in the House, but nearly 40 percent of House Democrats did support the resolution. Public opinion was favorable as well. Less than a month before the outbreak of war, a Gallup poll found 59 percent of the public supporting military action, and shortly after the start of the conflict on March 20, 2003, a Pew poll found 72 percent of the public describing the use of force as the right decision.

With time, rising casualties, no clear end in sight, and sharply polarized views of President George W. Bush, opinion about the Iraq war shifted, becoming less favorable and increasingly polarized.
The extent of partisan differences was stunningly apparent in a New York Times-CBS poll of delegates to the 2008 Democratic and Republican national conventions.
On the question of whether the United States “did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq,” 80 percent of Republican delegates and 70 percent of Republican voters agreed. In stark contrast,

only 14 percent of Democratic voters responded positively and just 2 percent of Democratic delegates did.
Politics stops at the water 8217 s edge Not recently. - The Washington Post

NOW do you understand WHY these quotes were so disgusting then??
So much for the "water's edge"!!!

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

So much for Sen. Arthur Vandenberg (A Republican!!!) support of TRUMAN a Democrat and the President!!!

"we must stop partisan politics at the water’s edge.”

America's enemies abroad only had to wait for you and your ilk to fabricate false narratives and to repeat them endlessly in the echo-chamber. The Iraqi people didn't need Murtha's accusations to be outraged at the massacre. I'm sure the Haditha Killing were brought up in the Iraq government when debating the immunity portion of the SOFA.

Vietnam provides a example to rebut your claim of an "unwritten law" called "we must stop partisan politics at the water’s edge.”

You know I AGREE about Vietnam! And it was Democrat President that was being DAMNED by the idiots like Kerry!
No question when you have the Jane Fonda's the Kerry "Ghengis Khan... testicles..." there was NOT a recognition of the "water's edge"!

Whether a Dem/GOP WE CAN"T attack our OWN military as Kerry,Murtha,et.al. did!
YES I know as many people did there WERE bad soldiers. NOT the RULE though as Obama/Kerry/et.al. make it sound like!
It was totally stupid to take exceptions as Haditha, Abu Ghrib,etc. as the RULE happened all the time! But politicians like Durbin, etc.
with the totally complicit MSM!

Republicans and Democrats in Congress both roundly criticized President Johnson on his Vietnam policy.

Kerry didn't testify until 1971 it was more of a damnation of war not Johnson/Nixon. Fonda didn't visit North Vietnam until 1972.

It took more than a year after the incident before anyone heard of Haditha.

There is a substantial difference between criticizing a President's policy and calling the troops in harms way murderers.

Here is an excerpt from Kerry’s testimony on April 22nd, 1971.

"They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

That is a helluva lot more than a damnation of war. Of course Kerry was preparing to run for Congress in a very liberal state at the time.

The number of Americans KIA and WIA during 1971 was greater than that of 1965, the first year of ground combat for U.S. infantry units. That toll also easily surpasses the total number of Gis KIA in Afghanistan over 10 years. The highest medals for valor that year include 7 Medals of Honor, 31 Distinguished Service Crosses, 3 Navy Crosses and 2 Air Force Crosses.

You don't suppose his condemnation of the troops encouraged the enemy do you?

Jane Fonda visit to North Vietnam in July 1972
Direct U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973.

This traitor was aiding and abetting those that were still killing and wounding American troops for over another year.

I think things like this encouraged them more, well encouraged in not quite the right word, motivated is a better term.

The murder of more than 400 Vietnamese civilians in My Lai and My Khe by US soldiers on March 16, 1968, stands as one of the darkest days in the nation’s military history. It left an indelible stain on America’s record in Vietnam, the nation’s longest, least popular, and most controversial war. It raises fundamental questions about the American way of war, US military leadership in Vietnam, and the difficulties of fighting insurgencies, a problem of major contemporary concern. It needs to be remembered and studied.

The Vietnam War and the My Lai Massacre The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

How many other celebs visited North Vietnam that year?

 

[healthmyths]

MADE no difference to the enemy! Stupid people making statements that the enemy takes totally out of context prolonged the Iraq war as the studies have show!
WHY in the hell would ANY one criticize the military planning KNOWING full well that the enemy loves to hear those words!

Up till Bush there was a "unwritten law" called "we must stop partisan politics at the water’s edge.”

Does polarization in domestic politics affect foreign policy as well?
There is a long-standing belief that it should not.

A classic statement of that view can be found in the widely cited words of a leading Republican senator in the early days of the Cold War. Speaking in 1947, Sen. Arthur Vandenberg(Mich.), the influential chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, provided key support to Democratic President Harry S. Truman and admonished his colleagues that “we must stop partisan politics at the water’s edge.”

And in practice, when it comes to military intervention, both the urgency of events and rally-round-the-flag effects are often conducive to wider support within Congress and among the general public.

Thus Gallup has found that in 10 conflicts over the past two decades, initial public approval averaged 68 percent.

Iraq provides a dramatic case in point.

At first the intervention received broad support.
On Oct. 10-11, 2002, the Senate and the House passed resolutions authorizing President George W. Bush to use armed force in Iraq.

The measure received overwhelming GOP backing, although a majority of Senate Democrats also voted in favor (29-21), with most presidential aspirants (Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Joseph R. Biden Jr. and John F. Kerry) voting yes.

There was stronger Democratic opposition in the House, but nearly 40 percent of House Democrats did support the resolution. Public opinion was favorable as well. Less than a month before the outbreak of war, a Gallup poll found 59 percent of the public supporting military action, and shortly after the start of the conflict on March 20, 2003, a Pew poll found 72 percent of the public describing the use of force as the right decision.

With time, rising casualties, no clear end in sight, and sharply polarized views of President George W. Bush, opinion about the Iraq war shifted, becoming less favorable and increasingly polarized.
The extent of partisan differences was stunningly apparent in a New York Times-CBS poll of delegates to the 2008 Democratic and Republican national conventions.
On the question of whether the United States “did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq,” 80 percent of Republican delegates and 70 percent of Republican voters agreed. In stark contrast,

only 14 percent of Democratic voters responded positively and just 2 percent of Democratic delegates did.
Politics stops at the water 8217 s edge Not recently. - The Washington Post

NOW do you understand WHY these quotes were so disgusting then??
So much for the "water's edge"!!!

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

So much for Sen. Arthur Vandenberg (A Republican!!!) support of TRUMAN a Democrat and the President!!!

"we must stop partisan politics at the water’s edge.”

America's enemies abroad only had to wait for you and your ilk to fabricate false narratives and to repeat them endlessly in the echo-chamber. The Iraqi people didn't need Murtha's accusations to be outraged at the massacre. I'm sure the Haditha Killing were brought up in the Iraq government when debating the immunity portion of the SOFA.

Vietnam provides a example to rebut your claim of an "unwritten law" called "we must stop partisan politics at the water’s edge.”

You know I AGREE about Vietnam! And it was Democrat President that was being DAMNED by the idiots like Kerry!
No question when you have the Jane Fonda's the Kerry "Ghengis Khan... testicles..." there was NOT a recognition of the "water's edge"!

Whether a Dem/GOP WE CAN"T attack our OWN military as Kerry,Murtha,et.al. did!
YES I know as many people did there WERE bad soldiers. NOT the RULE though as Obama/Kerry/et.al. make it sound like!
It was totally stupid to take exceptions as Haditha, Abu Ghrib,etc. as the RULE happened all the time! But politicians like Durbin, etc.
with the totally complicit MSM!

Republicans and Democrats in Congress both roundly criticized President Johnson on his Vietnam policy.

Kerry didn't testify until 1971 it was more of a damnation of war not Johnson/Nixon. Fonda didn't visit North Vietnam until 1972.

It took more than a year after the incident before anyone heard of Haditha.

There is a substantial difference between criticizing a President's policy and calling the troops in harms way murderers.

Here is an excerpt from Kerry’s testimony on April 22nd, 1971.

"They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

That is a helluva lot more than a damnation of war. Of course Kerry was preparing to run for Congress in a very liberal state at the time.

The number of Americans KIA and WIA during 1971 was greater than that of 1965, the first year of ground combat for U.S. infantry units. That toll also easily surpasses the total number of Gis KIA in Afghanistan over 10 years. The highest medals for valor that year include 7 Medals of Honor, 31 Distinguished Service Crosses, 3 Navy Crosses and 2 Air Force Crosses.

You don't suppose his condemnation of the troops encouraged the enemy do you?

Jane Fonda visit to North Vietnam in July 1972
Direct U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973.

This traitor was aiding and abetting those that were still killing and wounding American troops for over another year.

I think things like this encouraged them more, well encouraged in not quite the right word, motivated is a better term.

The murder of more than 400 Vietnamese civilians in My Lai and My Khe by US soldiers on March 16, 1968, stands as one of the darkest days in the nation’s military history. It left an indelible stain on America’s record in Vietnam, the nation’s longest, least popular, and most controversial war. It raises fundamental questions about the American way of war, US military leadership in Vietnam, and the difficulties of fighting insurgencies, a problem of major contemporary concern. It needs to be remembered and studied.

The Vietnam War and the My Lai Massacre The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

How many other celebs visited North Vietnam that year?

You know what you say is all true...BUT this tendency to self flagellate American all in public with all the news media certainly does NO good for the USA on so many levels.
Yea it shows USA is open but idiots take these RARE RARE events... compared to the millions of events done daily by the millions of USA military and blow completely out of proportion!
Name me ONE other country's military that has had such revelations!
The problem then is we don't know when to stop this beating our selves up!
It is NOT helpful in the GRAND scheme of things.... makes pious people like Kerry "feel" better but in the long run adds to the meme that the enemy has i.e. USA is a bad country... with bad soldiers... and we the terrorists are the good guys i.e. we can behead with honor!

Why this constant need to bash America when 180 million people of the world right today would love to come!
The USA has NO FENCES keeping people in... BUT FENCES keeping people OUT !

 

[NotfooledbyW]

TT183 9964112 regarding

NF 9961857, ]TT166 9960204, NF165 9959806, TT163 9958803, NY 9849288, HM 9849255, NY 9848980, BB 9848841, EC 9848689

Bush did go to the UN and got a resolution passed that clearly stated that Saddam was in material breach of the cease fire.

Yes he did. Resolution 1441. And it states right after it re-states that Iraq was in material breach this - in paragraph 2.:

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

Perhaps you will never be able to understand what it means when it says, "while acknowledging paragraph 1 above" but I will continue to point out that you are only capable of expressing half truths about this.


When you say "Bush did go to the UN and got a resolution passed that clearly stated that Saddam was in material breach of the cease fire" It is a half-truth. By virtue of it being a half-truth and the full truth being pointed out to you Too-Tall, if you continue to present your half-truth as the full truth you will be arguing a lie. Your argument will depend on a lie. There is no way around it for you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

TT189 9964685 regarding BB 9964290, TT 9964102, BB 9963927, HM 9963669, OO 9963465

The point is Murtha was aiding and abetting the enemy and is a traitor for saying what he said. I am waiting for the findings of the investigation.

Is there any part of this statement that is not true?

(Murtha, May 17, 2006 at news conference) "There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

 

[NotfooledbyW]

TT181 9964070 regarding NF 9961837, TT166 9960204, NF165 9959806, TT163 9958803, NY 9849288, HM 9849255, NY 9848980, BB 9848841, EC 9848689

Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum and a time line to comply with,Saddam ignored it.and payed the price.

Your statement is false. Bush signed the US to UNSC Resolution 1441. And when he did he agreed to the language in that Resolution. There is no deadline or timeline in 1441. Saddam did not ignore 1441. In fact Saddam offered to let the CIA, FBI and US military WMD experts come into Iraq in the thousands to find the WMD that Bush thought was there. That was in December 2002. There is no more offer of immediate cooperation than that. Bush rejected that offer and did not pursue it. I provide facts you provided what you 'read into' things.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HM172 9962169

NF 9961761, HM001 9824514 ]
What exact lie did Bush PERSONALLY MAKE UP with NO OTHER sources totally based on Bush's personally KNOWING that ALL the WMDs were destroyed?

You posted this: "..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD" Bill Clinton,1998" and then asked, "so how could Bush have lied if he was relying on Clinton's administration's Iraq/Saddam intelligence unless Clinton was the liar and that could never be right???" So I answered your question because I thought that is why you asked. Here is my response, "It should be obvious to healthmyths as to why Bush lied in March 2003 when he said Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors precisely because Bill Clinton's 1998 airstrikes to "deny the capacity to develop WMD" actually did apparently deny capacity to develop them."

It is obvious because after the invasion we found out the truth. Bill Clinton's 1998 airstrikes denied the Iraqis the capacity to develop WMD because they did not actually have any four years later. I have already told you many times that in October 2002 it was not improper or incorrect to believe our intelligence services that it was possible that Iraq had an active WMD program on chemical or biological weapons. Without access to Iraq it was not possible to get good intelligence on Iraq's true WMD capability and stockpiles.

However after November 2002 that access greatly improved with the restart of UN weapons inspections once again inside Iraq.

So Bush's lie still is his multiple claims that his preference was to disarm Iraq peacefully through the UN with an enhanced UNMOVIC and IAEA round of weapons inspections - and the threat of US military force being used only if Iraq did not cooperate with the new inspection regime. Iraq let the inspectors back in and reached a high degree of cooperation within 90 days of the signing of UN Res 1441.

Bush's main lie came on March 17, 2003 when he claimed to have intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was at that point in time concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from those post-1441 inspectors. That claim was based on intel that Bush has not shared with anyone to this day. And he could not have had that intel on March 7, 2003 when Bush made an offer in the form of a draft resolution to the UNSC to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power. If Bush actually had un-doubtable intelligence on March 7, 2003 that lethal weapons were being concealed form inspectors, how could he offer to allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power with that undoubted smoking gun in his pocket? So we must believe that Bush acquired this 'doubtless' intel between March 7, 2003 and March 17, 2003. Really hard to believe if you think about it. But even if he did acquire such damning intel as to justifity a US invasion during those ten days, he then violated his obligation to the UNSC when he withheld that intel from the inspectors. Bush agreed to provide all WMD intel to the inspectors when he signed on to UN Res 1441. But he didn't. He was lying to you on March 17, 2003 healthmyths. Flat out lying to us all and to the men and women in uniform he sent to kill and be killed in his unnecessary and catastrophic war.

 

[healthmyths]

HM172 9962169

NF 9961761, HM001 9824514 ]
What exact lie did Bush PERSONALLY MAKE UP with NO OTHER sources totally based on Bush's personally KNOWING that ALL the WMDs were destroyed?

You posted this: "..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD" Bill Clinton,1998" and then asked, "so how could Bush have lied if he was relying on Clinton's administration's Iraq/Saddam intelligence unless Clinton was the liar and that could never be right???" So I answered your question because I thought that is why you asked. Here is my response, "It should be obvious to healthmyths as to why Bush lied in March 2003 when he said Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors precisely because Bill Clinton's 1998 airstrikes to "deny the capacity to develop WMD" actually did apparently deny capacity to develop them."

It is obvious because after the invasion we found out the truth. Bill Clinton's 1998 airstrikes denied the Iraqis the capacity to develop WMD because they did not actually have any four years later. I have already told you many times that in October 2002 it was not improper or incorrect to believe our intelligence services that it was possible that Iraq had an active WMD program on chemical or biological weapons. Without access to Iraq it was not possible to get good intelligence on Iraq's true WMD capability and stockpiles.

However after November 2002 that access greatly improved with the restart of UN weapons inspections once again inside Iraq.

So Bush's lie still is his multiple claims that his preference was to disarm Iraq peacefully through the UN with an enhanced UNMOVIC and IAEA round of weapons inspections - and the threat of US military force being used only if Iraq did not cooperate with the new inspection regime. Iraq let the inspectors back in and reached a high degree of cooperation within 90 days of the signing of UN Res 1441.

Bush's main lie came on March 17, 2003 when he claimed to have intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was at that point in time concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from those post-1441 inspectors. That claim was based on intel that Bush has not shared with anyone to this day. And he could not have had that intel on March 7, 2003 when Bush made an offer in the form of a draft resolution to the UNSC to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power. If Bush actually had un-doubtable intelligence on March 7, 2003 that lethal weapons were being concealed form inspectors, how could he offer to allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power with that undoubted smoking gun in his pocket? So we must believe that Bush acquired this 'doubtless' intel between March 7, 2003 and March 17, 2003. Really hard to believe if you think about it. But even if he did acquire such damning intel as to justifity a US invasion during those ten days, he then violated his obligation to the UNSC when he withheld that intel from the inspectors. Bush agreed to provide all WMD intel to the inspectors when he signed on to UN Res 1441. But he didn't. He was lying to you on March 17, 2003 healthmyths. Flat out lying to us all and to the men and women in uniform he sent to kill and be killed in his unnecessary and catastrophic war.

So you think that Bush ALONE with all the military and intelligence community AT that point KNOWING WHAT YOU SAID go along with Bush EVEN though they know he his lying through his teeth? You are telling me that ALL these military/intelligence professionals told Bush and Bush alone ignored ALL their input and told them all to LIE?
Now THAT is even harder to believe!
All those professionals knowing their careers are at risk if they KNOW that Bush is on purpose LYING to the UN and the world?
Surely such a bumbling boozing idiot as Bush is portrayed would have been readily exposed. Was there a single "professional" to come forward and claim Bush knowingly and with full intent LIED?

In this day and age of whistleblowers, etc. where was the Washington Post, Dan Rather,etc. this kind of expose would have been very very greatly received if someone came forward and SHOWED without any doubt Bush LIED directly to all of us on 3/17/03.

 

[healthmyths]

TT189 9964685 regarding BB 9964290, TT 9964102, BB 9963927, HM 9963669, OO 9963465

The point is Murtha was aiding and abetting the enemy and is a traitor for saying what he said. I am waiting for the findings of the investigation.

Is there any part of this statement that is not true?

(Murtha, May 17, 2006 at news conference) "There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

What was the purpose of the Murtha news conference? Who benefited at that point in calling our troops cold blooded killers?
Certainly not the troops that were fighting in Iraq when the terrorists used the above to justify our troops deaths.
Certainly not the military commanders AS they were the ones that reported it as part of their investigation.
There is NEVER NEVER anything positive about calling our troops killers of innocent people!
How would Murtha like it if the reporters had said "Murtha, an unindicted co-conspirator in ABSCAM,...."
In that case NOT one person would have their lives in danger... unlike Murtha's comment that validated terrorists wrapping kids in bombs to go off when our troops handed out candy! The terrorists didn't care...about the truth much less the kids...they used these "innocent people killer" comments and that was totally at the minimum stupid or traitorous on the part of Murtha!
You just don't pour gasoline on a house fire thinking that will put it out!

 

[TooTall]

TT189 9964685 regarding BB 9964290, TT 9964102, BB 9963927, HM 9963669, OO 9963465

The point is Murtha was aiding and abetting the enemy and is a traitor for saying what he said. I am waiting for the findings of the investigation.

Is there any part of this statement that is not true?

(Murtha, May 17, 2006 at news conference) "There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

All of it, since he had no way of knowing if

TT189 9964685 regarding BB 9964290, TT 9964102, BB 9963927, HM 9963669, OO 9963465

The point is Murtha was aiding and abetting the enemy and is a traitor for saying what he said. I am waiting for the findings of the investigation.

Is there any part of this statement that is not true?

(Murtha, May 17, 2006 at news conference) "There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Here is what Murtha went on to say.

Hardballwith Chris Matthews, MSNBC, May 17, 2006

"MATTHEWS: Let me ask you Mr. Murtha to give us some details about that. Draw us a picture of what happened in Haditha.

MURTHA: Well, I‘ll tell you exactly what happened. One Marine was killed, and the Marines just said we‘re going to take care. They don‘t know who the enemy is. The pressure was too much on them, so they went into houses, and they actually killed civilians. And, you know—

MATTHEWS: Was this melee? I mean, was this a case of—when you say cold blood, Congressman, a lot of people think you‘re basically saying you have got some civilians sitting in a room or out in a field and they‘re executed just on purpose...

MURTHA: That‘s exactly what happened.

MATTHEWS: ...not because the Marines are scared or anybody is scared or the soldiers are scared.

MURTHA: Let me tell you, this was not an action, this was not—at first they tried to say it is an IED. There was no IED involved in this. This was troops who went in—they were so stressed out, they went into houses and killed women and children, 24 people they killed. Now, this is the kind of stuff—this is the kind of stress they‘re under.

Listen, I don‘t excuse it, but I understand what‘s happening. And the responsibility goes right to the top. This is something that should not have happened. It should have been investigated. As I understand it, they have already relieved three commanding officers—three officers in this whole thing, but this needs—this is the kind of stuff that stress is going to cause these kind things. That‘s why I‘m so upset about it.

MATTHEWS: Congressman, I just want to read something from the Marine Corps to make it official then you can continue. The Marine Corps told us today that they‘re not going to comment today because the investigation, as you say, is ongoing. So they‘re investigating."

Murtha was merely playing politics and slandering the US Marine Corps.

 

[TooTall]

TT181 9964070 regarding NF 9961837, TT166 9960204, NF165 9959806, TT163 9958803, NY 9849288, HM 9849255, NY 9848980, BB 9848841, EC 9848689

Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum and a time line to comply with,Saddam ignored it.and payed the price.

Your statement is false. Bush signed the US to UNSC Resolution 1441. And when he did he agreed to the language in that Resolution. There is no deadline or timeline in 1441. Saddam did not ignore 1441. In fact Saddam offered to let the CIA, FBI and US military WMD experts come into Iraq in the thousands to find the WMD that Bush thought was there. That was in December 2002. There is no more offer of immediate cooperation than that. Bush rejected that offer and did not pursue it. I provide facts you provided what you 'read into' things.

TT181 9964070 regarding NF 9961837, TT166 9960204, NF165 9959806, TT163 9958803, NY 9849288, HM 9849255, NY 9848980, BB 9848841, EC 9848689

Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum and a time line to comply with,Saddam ignored it.and payed the price.

Your statement is false. Bush signed the US to UNSC Resolution 1441. And when he did he agreed to the language in that Resolution. There is no deadline or timeline in 1441. Saddam did not ignore 1441. In fact Saddam offered to let the CIA, FBI and US military WMD experts come into Iraq in the thousands to find the WMD that Bush thought was there. That was in December 2002. There is no more offer of immediate cooperation than that. Bush rejected that offer and did not pursue it. I provide facts you provided what you 'read into' things.

I am tired of you off the wall bullshit. This is what Bush used to attack Iraq and Obama is using the exact same authority from the US Congress to attack ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Go pedal your hatred of Bush somewhere else.

The Iraq Resolutionor the Iraq War Resolution(formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1]Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat.1498, enacted October 16, 2002,H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by theUnited States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

TT 9969908 regarding NF 9968021, TT181 9964070, NF 9961837, TT166 9960204, NF165 9959806, TT163 9958803, NY 9849288, HM 9849255, NY 9848980, BB 9848841, EC 9848689

I am tired of you off the wall bullshit. This is what Bush used to attack Iraq and Obama is using the exact same authority from the US Congress to attack ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Go pedal your hatred of Bush somewhere else.

The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution(formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1]Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat.1498, enacted October 16, 2002,H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by theUnited States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.

You may be tired TooTall but you can't refute a single point I make.

And I certainly have never argued that Bush did not use the AUMF October 2002 to invade Iraq. What is your point there? That AUMF is applicable to US law. 1441 is under International law.

In your post 9964070 you wrote "Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum and a time line to comply with, Saddam ignored it and payed the price."

That is not true. Can you defend your argument or are you TooTired?