Just How Bad Did The Republicans Want To Invade Iraq?

[Iceweasel]

Iraq was about oil and the global balance of power. You don't get to invade Kuwait and disrupt that balance.

That was the first Gulf War. And the Americans had practically invited Saddam to invade Kuwait. And neither Iraq War had anything to do with global balance of power, since Iraq had no power in the world.

Practically invited? What do those words mean to the shortbus passengers?

The Iraqi ambassador at the time (some women I forget her name) told Saddam that the US likely wouldn't do anything if Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Sounds pretty vague, hardly a reason for an invasion. But go ahead and support the assertion.

“ We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. ” - April Gaspie, US Ambassador to Iraq.

Like I said, really OLD stuff. You're stuck on stupid. That wasn't a green light to an invasion anymore than an unlocked door is an invitation to burglary.

April Glaspie
When these purported transcripts were made public, Glaspie was accused of having given approval for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which took place on August 2, 1990. The transcript, however, does not show any explicit statement of approval of, acceptance of, or foreknowledge of the invasion. Indeed Glaspie's opening question ("Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?") would suggest that Glaspie (and presumably therefore also the State Department) did not know the purpose of the troop concentrations and was concerned about them.

The transcript also shows clearly that when Glaspie expressed the hope that the Iraq-Kuwait dispute would be "solved quickly," she meant "solved by diplomatic means." The references to solving this problem "using any suitable methods via Klibi or via Mubarak" make this clear. Nothing Glaspie says in the published versions of the transcript can be fairly interpreted as implying U.S. approval of an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

 

[Muhammed]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

You are lying your ignorant ass off.

UNSCOM inspectors left Iraq before Operation Desert Fox in December 1998.

 

[Correll]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

There's no reason to rehash the reasons. We both know them.

You have nothing, got it.

it's not about me. The reasons were gone over and over to the point I stopped watching the news.

THat you want to pretend that there is some mystery about it some odd little game of yours I have no interest in playing.

I'm just as interested in discussing who really shot JFK.

 

[healthmyths]

Iraq was about oil and the global balance of power. You don't get to invade Kuwait and disrupt that balance.

That was the first Gulf War. And the Americans had practically invited Saddam to invade Kuwait. And neither Iraq War had anything to do with global balance of power, since Iraq had no power in the world.

Practically invited? What do those words mean to the shortbus passengers?

The Iraqi ambassador at the time (some women I forget her name) told Saddam that the US likely wouldn't do anything if Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Why are you expressing an opinion if you can't even do a simple Internet Search for say this question
" who was woman told Saddam go ahead invade Kuwait"

April Catherine Glaspie (born April 26, 1942) is an American former diplomat and senior member of the Foreign Service, best known for her role in the events leading up to the Persian Gulf War of 1991.
April Glaspie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But see this totally illustrates YOUR ineptness and therefore your gross ignorance!

Here is exactly what she said. FACTS but again ignorant people like you just jump to conclusions with no basis of FACT!

Retrospective views[edit]
In 2002, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs published a new account of the Glaspie-Saddam meeting by Andrew Kilgore, a former U.S. ambassador to Qatar. Kilgore summarized the meeting as follows:[8]

“ At their meeting, the American ambassador explained to Saddam that the United States did not take a stand on Arab-Arab conflicts, such as Iraq’s border disagreement with Kuwait. She made clear, however, that differences should be settled by peaceful means.
Glaspie’s concerns were greatly eased when Saddam told her that the forthcoming Iraq-Kuwait meeting in Jeddah was for protocol purposes, to be followed by substantive discussions to be held in Baghdad.
In response to the ambassador’s question, Saddam named a date when Kuwaiti Crown Prince Shaikh Sa’ad Abdallah would be arriving in Baghdad for those substantive discussions. (This appears in retrospect to have been Saddam’s real deception.)

James Akins, the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia at the time, offered a somewhat different perspective in a 2000 interview on PBS:[9]

“ [Glaspie] took the straight American line, which is we do not take positions on border disputes between friendly countries.
That's standard.
That's what you always say.
You would not have said, 'Mr. President, if you really are considering invading Kuwait, by God, we'll bring down the wrath of God on your palaces, and on your country, and you'll all be destroyed.' She wouldn't say that, nor would I. Neither would any diplomat. ”

Joseph C. Wilson, Glaspie's Deputy Chief of Mission in Baghdad, referred to her meeting with Saddam Hussein in a May 14, 2004 interview on Democracy Now!: an "Iraqi participant in the meeting [...] said to me very clearly that Saddam did not misunderstand, did not think he was getting a green or yellow light."

Wilson's and Akins' views on this question are in line with those of former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, who stated in a 1996 interview with Frontline that, prior to the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq "had no illusions" about the likelihood of U.S. military intervention.

“ In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest.

SO again FACTS have a way of blowing apart false assumptions that ignorant people make with NO INFORMATION!

I don't read copy&paste long-winded posts. Now you know.

Right. Makes a lot of sense in light of your contributions which are full of guesses, your ignorant opinions.
And of course the reason you don't read the facts is because you are like these people!

 

[Mudda]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

You are lying your ignorant ass off.

UNSCOM inspectors left Iraq before Operation Desert Fox in December 1998.

So what did the US army find? NOTHING! You fail.

 

[Iceweasel]

Republicans forget what their positions were as soon as the GOP changes their position.

They forget it was them who came up with the same jobs Americans won't do and they forget another great example that they are the ones who drafted NAFTA. So of course they forget how badly they were trying to lead us to war in Iraq much like I'm sure they don't remember John McCain if he would have won the presidency wanted to go to war with Iran. Now I'm imagining the war on terror with a dismantled Iran. We would be f*****

"The Republicans, like Democrats, differed on a lot of stuff. Clinton signed NAFTA into law, you're saying he was too stupid to understand it.

 

[Mudda]

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

There's no reason to rehash the reasons. We both know them.

You have nothing, got it.

it's not about me. The reasons were gone over and over to the point I stopped watching the news.

THat you want to pretend that there is some mystery about it some odd little game of yours I have no interest in playing.

I'm just as interested in discussing who really shot JFK.

You don't have to go on and on about it, everyone here has already noticed your concession on the point.

 

[Iceweasel]

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

You mean the WMD Iraq hid over in Syria while we pussy footed with the UN trying to get them to go along with us. I think Bush should've gone in months earlier.

Saddam thumbed his nose at us. He didn't take us seriously. He takes us seriously now doesn't he.

The WMD in Syria are called Syrian WMD. So you're saying that GW invaded the wrong country?

And you know they didn't come from Iraq...how?

And you know that Jesus didn't put them there...how?

What? You really are a retard.

 

[Freewill]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

You new here? That lie was dubunked over 10 years ago. Try to keep up in the future.

So what was the valid reason to destroy Iraq?

Here is something the left seems to have forgotten:

Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. policy shifted in 1998 when the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" after Iraq terminated its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August. The act made it official U.S. policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power..." although it also made clear that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces."[15][16]This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which made no mention of regime change.[17]

One month after the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act," the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. The campaign's express rationale was to hamper the Hussein government's ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. national security personnel also reportedly hoped it would help weaken Hussein's grip on power.[18]

So as usual a democrat doesn't get the support of congress yet acts any way. At least Bush got the OK from Mrs. Clinton before removing the Butcher of Baghdad from power.

Whether GW got Hilderbeast's ok or not is irrelevant. There still was no valid reason to invade Iraq. And trying to associate the Clinton's with that action is irrelevant as well. (I'm not a Democrat).

The point is, you are only spouting your opinion. YOU say there were no reasons. What you mean, in my opinion, is there were no reasons that would make you agree with the war, which is OK for you to think that but again, that is just your opinion. Those in congress who should be in the know with all the information available thought differently then what YOU think and for that matter what I think we should have done.

So, if you think it such a bad decision are you going to vote for Mrs. Clinton who apparently knew less about Saddam then you did?

 

[Iceweasel]

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

There's no reason to rehash the reasons. We both know them.

You have nothing, got it.

it's not about me. The reasons were gone over and over to the point I stopped watching the news.

THat you want to pretend that there is some mystery about it some odd little game of yours I have no interest in playing.

I'm just as interested in discussing who really shot JFK.

You don't have to go on and on about it, everyone here has already noticed your concession on the point.

A dishonest retard at that.

 

[Mudda]

That was the first Gulf War. And the Americans had practically invited Saddam to invade Kuwait. And neither Iraq War had anything to do with global balance of power, since Iraq had no power in the world.

Practically invited? What do those words mean to the shortbus passengers?

The Iraqi ambassador at the time (some women I forget her name) told Saddam that the US likely wouldn't do anything if Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Why are you expressing an opinion if you can't even do a simple Internet Search for say this question
" who was woman told Saddam go ahead invade Kuwait"

April Catherine Glaspie (born April 26, 1942) is an American former diplomat and senior member of the Foreign Service, best known for her role in the events leading up to the Persian Gulf War of 1991.
April Glaspie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But see this totally illustrates YOUR ineptness and therefore your gross ignorance!

Here is exactly what she said. FACTS but again ignorant people like you just jump to conclusions with no basis of FACT!

Retrospective views[edit]
In 2002, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs published a new account of the Glaspie-Saddam meeting by Andrew Kilgore, a former U.S. ambassador to Qatar. Kilgore summarized the meeting as follows:[8]

“ At their meeting, the American ambassador explained to Saddam that the United States did not take a stand on Arab-Arab conflicts, such as Iraq’s border disagreement with Kuwait. She made clear, however, that differences should be settled by peaceful means.
Glaspie’s concerns were greatly eased when Saddam told her that the forthcoming Iraq-Kuwait meeting in Jeddah was for protocol purposes, to be followed by substantive discussions to be held in Baghdad.
In response to the ambassador’s question, Saddam named a date when Kuwaiti Crown Prince Shaikh Sa’ad Abdallah would be arriving in Baghdad for those substantive discussions. (This appears in retrospect to have been Saddam’s real deception.)

James Akins, the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia at the time, offered a somewhat different perspective in a 2000 interview on PBS:[9]

“ [Glaspie] took the straight American line, which is we do not take positions on border disputes between friendly countries.
That's standard.
That's what you always say.
You would not have said, 'Mr. President, if you really are considering invading Kuwait, by God, we'll bring down the wrath of God on your palaces, and on your country, and you'll all be destroyed.' She wouldn't say that, nor would I. Neither would any diplomat. ”

Joseph C. Wilson, Glaspie's Deputy Chief of Mission in Baghdad, referred to her meeting with Saddam Hussein in a May 14, 2004 interview on Democracy Now!: an "Iraqi participant in the meeting [...] said to me very clearly that Saddam did not misunderstand, did not think he was getting a green or yellow light."

Wilson's and Akins' views on this question are in line with those of former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, who stated in a 1996 interview with Frontline that, prior to the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq "had no illusions" about the likelihood of U.S. military intervention.

“ In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest.

SO again FACTS have a way of blowing apart false assumptions that ignorant people make with NO INFORMATION!

I don't read copy&paste long-winded posts. Now you know.

Right. Makes a lot of sense in light of your contributions which are full of guesses, your ignorant opinions.
And of course the reason you don't read the facts is because you are like these people!
View attachment 54897

HA! I give you a chance to re-state your position in a more condensed way and you prefer not to.

 

[Correll]

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

There's no reason to rehash the reasons. We both know them.

You have nothing, got it.

it's not about me. The reasons were gone over and over to the point I stopped watching the news.

THat you want to pretend that there is some mystery about it some odd little game of yours I have no interest in playing.

I'm just as interested in discussing who really shot JFK.

You don't have to go on and on about it, everyone here has already noticed your concession on the point.

FUnny that you whine so much about a supposed lie, and then actually lie.

Liberals: all the self awareness of a turnip.

 

[Mudda]

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

You new here? That lie was dubunked over 10 years ago. Try to keep up in the future.

So what was the valid reason to destroy Iraq?

Here is something the left seems to have forgotten:

Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. policy shifted in 1998 when the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" after Iraq terminated its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August. The act made it official U.S. policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power..." although it also made clear that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces."[15][16]This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which made no mention of regime change.[17]

One month after the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act," the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. The campaign's express rationale was to hamper the Hussein government's ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. national security personnel also reportedly hoped it would help weaken Hussein's grip on power.[18]

So as usual a democrat doesn't get the support of congress yet acts any way. At least Bush got the OK from Mrs. Clinton before removing the Butcher of Baghdad from power.

Whether GW got Hilderbeast's ok or not is irrelevant. There still was no valid reason to invade Iraq. And trying to associate the Clinton's with that action is irrelevant as well. (I'm not a Democrat).

The point is, you are only spouting your opinion. YOU say there were no reasons. What you mean, in my opinion, is there were no reasons that would make you agree with the war, which is OK for you to think that but again, that is just your opinion. Those in congress who should be in the know with all the information available thought differently then what YOU think and for that matter what I think we should have done.

So, if you think it such a bad decision are you going to vote for Mrs. Clinton who apparently knew less about Saddam then you did?

I'm saying that you can't give me a valid reason for GW's invasion of Iraq.

 

[healthmyths]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

You are lying your ignorant ass off.

UNSCOM inspectors left Iraq before Operation Desert Fox in December 1998.

So what did the US army find? NOTHING! You fail.

BOMBSHELL: New York Times Reports WMDs WERE Found in Iraq!
The New York Times shockingly admitted in an explosive front page report that thousands of WMDs were found in Iraq since the start of the war:
From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
So, now it needs to be repeated millions of times: there WERE WMDs found in Iraq! But of course The Times couldn’t admit that their discovery vindicates President Bush. Instead they claim that these WMDs don’t count and that an active WMD program was the only rationale for the Iraq War:

Read more: BOMBSHELL: New York Times Reports WMDs WERE Found in Iraq! - The Political Insider

 

[Mudda]

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

There's no reason to rehash the reasons. We both know them.

You have nothing, got it.

it's not about me. The reasons were gone over and over to the point I stopped watching the news.

THat you want to pretend that there is some mystery about it some odd little game of yours I have no interest in playing.

I'm just as interested in discussing who really shot JFK.

You don't have to go on and on about it, everyone here has already noticed your concession on the point.

FUnny that you whine so much about a supposed lie, and then actually lie.

Liberals: all the self awareness of a turnip.

Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.

 

[Freewill]

Halabja chemical attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Halabja chemical attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce کیمیابارانی ھەڵەبجە), also known as the Halabja Massacre orBloody Friday,[1] was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War in the Kurdish city of Halabja in Southern Kurdistan. The attack was part of the Al-Anfal campaign in northern Iraq, as well as part of the Iraqi attempt to repel the Iranian Operation Zafar 7. It took place 48 hours after the fall of the town to Iranian army and Kurdish guerrillas.

The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injured 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians.[1][2] Thousands more died ofcomplications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.[3] The incident, which has been officially defined as an act ofgenocide against the Kurdish people in Iraq,[4] was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.[5]

 

[healthmyths]

You new here? That lie was dubunked over 10 years ago. Try to keep up in the future.

So what was the valid reason to destroy Iraq?

Here is something the left seems to have forgotten:

Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. policy shifted in 1998 when the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" after Iraq terminated its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August. The act made it official U.S. policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power..." although it also made clear that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces."[15][16]This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which made no mention of regime change.[17]

One month after the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act," the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. The campaign's express rationale was to hamper the Hussein government's ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. national security personnel also reportedly hoped it would help weaken Hussein's grip on power.[18]

So as usual a democrat doesn't get the support of congress yet acts any way. At least Bush got the OK from Mrs. Clinton before removing the Butcher of Baghdad from power.

Whether GW got Hilderbeast's ok or not is irrelevant. There still was no valid reason to invade Iraq. And trying to associate the Clinton's with that action is irrelevant as well. (I'm not a Democrat).

The point is, you are only spouting your opinion. YOU say there were no reasons. What you mean, in my opinion, is there were no reasons that would make you agree with the war, which is OK for you to think that but again, that is just your opinion. Those in congress who should be in the know with all the information available thought differently then what YOU think and for that matter what I think we should have done.

So, if you think it such a bad decision are you going to vote for Mrs. Clinton who apparently knew less about Saddam then you did?

I'm saying that you can't give me a valid reason for GW's invasion of Iraq.

A) 1991 Cease Fire.... NOTE it was a "CEASE FIRE" NOT a peace agreement. Meant any violation by Saddam would mean resumption of the War.
B) Of course YOU never care for the 2 million children that would have starved by now because Saddam wouldn't certify WMDs were destroyed.
C) Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:
Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions

 

[Slyhunter]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

You mean the WMD Iraq hid over in Syria while we pussy footed with the UN trying to get them to go along with us. I think Bush should've gone in months earlier.

Saddam thumbed his nose at us. He didn't take us seriously. He takes us seriously now doesn't he.

The WMD in Syria are called Syrian WMD. So you're saying that GW invaded the wrong country?

I'm saying that while Powell was pussy footing with the UN, instead of invading Iraq like they should've been, Saddam moved his WMD's to Syria.

It was Saddam who wanted the world to believe he had WMD's. Blame Saddam for the invasion. Saddam did everything he could to thumb his nose at the US. Anyone who thumbs their noses at the US should be spanked and spanked hard.

 

[Mudda]

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

You are lying your ignorant ass off.

UNSCOM inspectors left Iraq before Operation Desert Fox in December 1998.

So what did the US army find? NOTHING! You fail.

BOMBSHELL: New York Times Reports WMDs WERE Found in Iraq!
The New York Times shockingly admitted in an explosive front page report that thousands of WMDs were found in Iraq since the start of the war:
From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
So, now it needs to be repeated millions of times: there WERE WMDs found in Iraq! But of course The Times couldn’t admit that their discovery vindicates President Bush. Instead they claim that these WMDs don’t count and that an active WMD program was the only rationale for the Iraq War:

Read more: BOMBSHELL: New York Times Reports WMDs WERE Found in Iraq! - The Political Insider

So it takes the NY Times to save the GOP's butt? Ummm... no.

 

[sealybobo]

Republicans forget what their positions were as soon as the GOP changes their position.

They forget it was them who came up with the same jobs Americans won't do and they forget another great example that they are the ones who drafted NAFTA. So of course they forget how badly they were trying to lead us to war in Iraq much like I'm sure they don't remember John McCain if he would have won the presidency wanted to go to war with Iran. Now I'm imagining the war on terror with a dismantled Iran. We would be f*****

"The Republicans, like Democrats, differed on a lot of stuff. Clinton signed NAFTA into law, you're saying he was too stupid to understand it.

NAFTA was a done deal at that point. And laughter is one of the reasons why us Democrats don't absolutely love the Clinton. Because they went along with the Republicans on much too much. The Clintons were and are triangulator so they will give to get. Notice how you bash Obama because he will not triangulate with the Republicans? So really if you're Republican Democrats are in a no win situation we're damned if you do and we're damned if you don't. You think Clinton couldn't stop free trade back in the 90s? Don't be stupid