Oh No, Not This Again....

[para bellum]

No Democrat invaded Iraq, so regardless of whether they supported the war or not, Bill and Hillary Clinton did not start a war with Iraq.

This is all democrats ever have to say when confronted with their own record. First the denial, then "Well, it wasn't a democrat that actually invaded". Big yawn. Bill Clinton made regime change the official policy of the US. Bush carried it out.

The WMD's were claimed to be in Saddam's possession by both parties, this was repeated over and over in the media for over a decade prior to the invasion of Iraq. Clinton sent hundreds of cruise missiles into Iraq while he was POTUS.

Dems with their revisionist history, now beating the war drums on Russia. Blind adherence to the party line, no matter the consequences. Didn't care about Iraqis then, and don't care about Ukrainians today. Only care about Biden's political fortunes, since he is the one in the office with the "D" after his name.

I am not moved by your fabricated outrage.

 

[bripat9643]

Looks like Pooty is dusting off the Republican playbook....

View attachment 616705

Anton Troianovski

Reporting from Istanbul

President Vladimir V. Putin renewed his efforts to justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine in a televised videoconference with top officials. He claimed, falsely, that “the pro-Nazi regime in Kyiv” was on its way to obtaining weapons of mass destruction, “and their aim, of course, would have been Russia.”

Ukraine Live Updates: Zelensky Asks Congress for More Weapons as Civilian Casualties Rise

A Mariupol theater where officials said hundreds had been sheltering was largely destroyed. President Biden announced $800 million in new military aid after Ukraine’s president addressed Congress by video. Ukrainian forces launched a counteroffensive in Kherson.

www.nytimes.com

So he's a liar just like Biden?

 

[para bellum]

What else did they say?

"The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or “with any allies we can muster.” Such a course, she said, “is fraught with danger,” in part because “it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us,” legitimizing invasions that Russia might launch against Georgia, India against Pakistan, or China against Taiwan.

So,” she continued, “the question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States—and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.”

She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.

“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”

Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”

Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote

A specter is haunting Hillary Clinton’s campaign: the specter of Iraq, specifically her Senate vote in 2002 giving President George W. Bush the...

slate.com

tl/dr and don't care what rationalizations Hillary has to offer. And if you do, I point you to Libya.

OP said Putin was taking a page out of republican's book with WMD claims, and that is dem BS.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

More like the RNC wordsmiths and their propaganda campaign in the lead up to the Iraq Invasion based on non-existent WMD. The entire MSN was in bed with that one!

Post# 18, clown. You are incapable of learning anything because you already know it all.
Or at least you are convinced you do.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Democrats completely block out the fact that for 8 years under Clinton, all we heard about Iraq was Saddam's WMD's.

US and British aircraft were getting shot at every day trying to enforce a no-fly zone, and Clinton had sent hundreds of cruise missiles to take out "suspected chemical weapon sites" in Iraq.

It's as if that part of the story never happened, WMD's were just invented by republicans out of thin air. The reality is that Iraq's WMD's had received continuous coverage in the media for the last decade, and the public was completely primed to accept it as fact.

There were chemical weapons in Iraq in 2003, most were under seal. Not all though, some were moved to Syria, and came very close to being used by al Qaeda in Jordan.

Thanks for the confirming information. I was not dreaming when I would switch on the old tv and watch columns of trucks leaving Iraq headed for safe keeping in Syria by good neighbor Bashar Asaad who would later gas his own people with what Hussein dropped off.

It was live on CNN for anyone to see (before they would become a clown show and an idiotorium filled with
dunces like the Cuomo bros and Brian Stelter.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

tl/dr and don't care what rationalizations Hillary has to offer. And if you do, I point you to Libya.

OP said Putin was taking a page out of republican's book with WMD claims, and that is dem BS.

Yup. Years after the event trolls still act like they know what was going on.
They don't! And never did.

 

[odanny]

Yeah, okay.

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 Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998

"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 Bill 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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.""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:
-- Democratic Senators 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

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
-- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) Feb. 24, 2002

"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 th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 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. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." "
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA) Sep. 27, 2002

"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."
-- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 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."
-- Senator John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
-- Sen. Harry Reid (D. NV) Oct. 9, 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 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

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (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."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 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

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)

I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening.
-- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D, MT) Nov. 2, 2003

So what? Talk is cheap. Which of these politicians advocated for an invasion of Iraq? Name them. Which of them said things like they were acquiring "yellow cake", or the puppet Sec. of State Condeleeza Rice talked about a "mushroom cloud"?

Those dirty neoconservatives even sullied the reputation of a great man and general, Colin Powell, by roping him into their dirty game of warmongering before the United Nations. Sorry bud, this was a full fledged Republican event. Only ONE Republican in the Senate voted against the war, and there should be a statue to this man. What were Republicans all in unison advocating for?

The invasion of Iraq, you imbecile.

I don't know if you're just another Russian troll or just another Republican apologist, but the facts are, we would have never invaded Iraq if Al Gore had not of had his election victory stolen from him. Thanks Jeb!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I don't know if you're just another Russian troll or just another Republican apologist, but the facts are, we would have never invaded Iraq if Al Gore had not of had his election victory stolen from him. Thanks Jeb!

Poor Albert Gore. Getting the Florida Supreme Court to become amateur mind readers that could magically divine squiggles on a ballot for Gore couldn't have been easy.
But they were perfectly willing to give Al Gore their nod of approval even when no one else was able to
interpret the hieroglyphics on ballots except for the democrat dominated Florida Supreme court.

Good thing the real Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the madness in mid theft.
Can you imagine anyone with the 'nads to steal a presidential election like that?

 

[BlindBoo]

No Democrat invaded Iraq, so regardless of whether they supported the war or not, Bill and Hillary Clinton did not start a war with Iraq.

You're just trying to deflect from the crimes of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Won't work. You broke it, you own it.

Bush certainly didn't let the weapons inspectors finish their job like he promised he would. But they gave him the power to decide. Once that decision was made most of the country supported Bush, for a while.

tl/dr and don't care what rationalizations Hillary has to offer. And if you do, I point you to Libya.

OP said Putin was taking a page out of republican's book with WMD claims, and that is dem BS.

That's what GW said. He didn't care what anyone said before the vote, including himself. Name the Democrat administration that invaded and occupied a nation based on alleged WMD being actively produced?

 

[22lcidw]

Bush certainly didn't let the weapons inspectors finish their job like he promised he would. But they gave him the power to decide. Once that decision was made most of the country supported Bush, for a while.


That's what GW said. He didn't care what anyone said before the vote, including himself. Name the Democrat administration that invaded and occupied a nation based on alleged WMD being actively produced?

if any of that was true, he would have lost support of many of his own. He lost me with the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and the TSA. Progs have done nothing to eliminate this and in affect helped to expand it.

 

[Colin norris]

Red Joe's got his very best on this, don't worry...

View attachment 616706

You have all gone a bit silent on Trump since publicly showed his support for putin.
Got a bit embarrassing did it? He's not the flavour now we know he's a communist assett.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

if any of that was true, he would have lost support of many of his own. He lost me with the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and the TSA. Progs have done nothing to eliminate this and in affect helped to expand it.

Speak the truth, brother!

 

[konradv]

Putin sounds just like a DNC spin doctor taking minnows of truth and turning them into whales
of exaggeration. It's the stuff CNN or Joe and Mika are made of.

You meant RNC didn’t you or is this just another attempt at gaslighting to cover-up their now embarrassing Putin-love?

 

[odanny]

Poor Albert Gore. Getting the Florida Supreme Court to become amateur mind readers that could magically divine squiggles on a ballot for Gore couldn't have been easy.
But they were perfectly willing to give Al Gore their nod of approval even when no one else was able to
interpret the hieroglyphics on ballots except for the democrat dominated Florida Supreme court.

Good thing the real Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the madness in mid theft.
Can you imagine anyone with the 'nads to steal a presidential election like that?

Well, your boy sure tried, didn't he? You can read my signature line for proof, as if proof would penetrate your skull.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Well, your boy sure tried, didn't he? You can read my signature line for proof, as if proof would penetrate your skull.

I would evade and act like my post doesn't exist too if the Supreme Court had to step in and put an end to my favorite savior of the planet's recount farce.
Embarrassing, it is.

 

[odanny]

I would evade and act like my post doesn't exist too if the Supreme Court had to step in and put an end to my favorite savior of the planet's recount farce.
Embarrassing, it is.

Your take is certainly embarrassing, but why expect otherwise? You believe a pathological liar about a stolen election with zero evidence.

So easy to manipulate the weak and ill informed.

 

[marvin martian]

Why would you deflect the OP with such a massively stupid post? What the hell does Jen Psaki have to do with the Op's point?

Psaki works for Putin, as does John Kerry. That's important given their roles in the current regime.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Your take is certainly embarrassing, but why expect otherwise? You believe a pathological liar about a stolen election with zero evidence.

So easy to manipulate the weak and ill informed.

There actually is LOTS of evidence, none that a twisted liar would admit to, however.

Here is the Evidence

Crowdsourcing evidence for journalists.

hereistheevidence.com

And you believe poor Albert Gore got railroaded when the evidence shows no such thing.
From CNN, no less. And what's "funny" about your cowardly rejection of facts?

So, who really won? What the Bush v. Gore studies showed | CNN Politics

After the grueling 36-day Florida recount battle, Al Gore conceded the presidency to George W. Bush on December 13, 2000.

www.cnn.com

Like the Gore v Bush race, this matter is over!

 

[odanny]

hereistheevidence.com

Like I said, the weak and ill informed are who Trump targets.

Always has, always will.