Ol' Prez

[the_human_being]

Looks like someone is having a wet dream.

Compared to the drug store cowboy he looks like Adonis

Bush is pretty fit, probably could kick the girly guy's ass one handed.

Yeah...real tough guy. Got Saddam and it just required 4500 young American kids to be killed.

Hussein had never done a damn thing to the U S. What he did was tried to assassinate Bush's Daddy in Qatar......1993.

You can't possibly be that stupid? Then again.........................

Can we vote upon just how stupid he can be?

 

[TooTall]

View attachment 58582

LMAO!!!

James Woods.....what a goddam authority

Address what is said,not who said it. Woods is 100% correct, Obungles is merely a puppet

Young Americans aren't dying every day and we've had 69 consecutive months of job growth. Just what does it take for you warmongers to get happy?

Yeah....four diplomats who volunteered for hazardous duty and were drawing hazardous duty pay were killed in Benghazi. Bush's deal on the other hand...when he invaded Iraq totally unnecessarily cost 4500 young American lives. You folks aren't very good at math....'course Bush was a C student at Yale so what might one expect?

More GI's have been killed in Afghanistan on Obama's watch than there were on Bush's. We don't know if Obama got C's because he won't release his transcripts. Bush got better grades than John Kerry and I would bet you voted for him.

 

[the_human_being]

Lock and Load!!

[GRAPHIC] Follower of Islam Tries To Rape Little Girl, Winds Up With His Face and Groin REARRANGED

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Lock and Load!!

[GRAPHIC] Follower of Islam Tries To Rape Little Girl, Winds Up With His Face and Groin REARRANGED

Uneducated animals

 

[Maryland Patriot]

never a shark when you need one.

There are just some things a shark will not eat.

I guess since they arent bottom feeders all liberals are safe

 

[The Rabbi]

Looking good in the hood:

View attachment 58577

"Hood"? WTF?? HE is on a $450,000 vacation in Hawaii. I havent even been to Hawaii on vacation. He is an elitist shill putting his gay dick up your ass and you're cheering him on.

 

[Carla_Danger]

View attachment 58582

LMAO!!!

James Woods.....what a goddam authority

Address what is said,not who said it. Woods is 100% correct, Obungles is merely a puppet

I thought James Woods was dead, but here he is with his great granddaughter. How old is James now, 80?

 

[Rustic]

Looks like someone is having a wet dream.

Compared to the drug store cowboy he looks like Adonis

Bush is pretty fit, probably could kick the girly guy's ass one handed.

Yeah...real tough guy. Got Saddam and it just required 4500 young American kids to be killed.

Hussein had never done a damn thing to the U S. What he did was tried to assassinate Bush's Daddy in Qatar......1993.

Cross fit??



Lol

 

[the_human_being]

5th worst person of 2015:

GQ Ranks Hillary Its 5th Worst Person Of 2015, Just Ahead Of Bill Cosby And Jared Fogle

 

[konradv]

Is this thread not turning out as intended?

Nah, the racism is coming through loud and clear. It's almost TOO easy!

 

[Campbell]

Fell as in wounded, he died after he returned. Sit the fuck down, troll. You are not fit to wipe his boots

But sounds like you're fit enough to lick 'em.....

You immediately start thinking about something to lick.........figures

 

[Campbell]

LMAO!!!

James Woods.....what a goddam authority

Address what is said,not who said it. Woods is 100% correct, Obungles is merely a puppet

Young Americans aren't dying every day and we've had 69 consecutive months of job growth. Just what does it take for you warmongers to get happy?

Yeah....four diplomats who volunteered for hazardous duty and were drawing hazardous duty pay were killed in Benghazi. Bush's deal on the other hand...when he invaded Iraq totally unnecessarily cost 4500 young American lives. You folks aren't very good at math....'course Bush was a C student at Yale so what might one expect?

More GI's have been killed in Afghanistan on Obama's watch than there were on Bush's. We don't know if Obama got C's because he won't release his transcripts. Bush got better grades than John Kerry and I would bet you voted for him.

Obama didn't start the goddam wars.....he ended them! That why all you warmongers hate him. That and the fact that he has a good tan....even better than Boehner's.

 

[The Rabbi]

Address what is said,not who said it. Woods is 100% correct, Obungles is merely a puppet

Young Americans aren't dying every day and we've had 69 consecutive months of job growth. Just what does it take for you warmongers to get happy?

Yeah....four diplomats who volunteered for hazardous duty and were drawing hazardous duty pay were killed in Benghazi. Bush's deal on the other hand...when he invaded Iraq totally unnecessarily cost 4500 young American lives. You folks aren't very good at math....'course Bush was a C student at Yale so what might one expect?

More GI's have been killed in Afghanistan on Obama's watch than there were on Bush's. We don't know if Obama got C's because he won't release his transcripts. Bush got better grades than John Kerry and I would bet you voted for him.

Obama didn't start the goddam wars.....he ended them! That why all you warmongers hate him. That and the fact that he has a good tan....even better than Boehner's.

Obama ended wars? Which ones? Do we have troops in Iraq? Yes. Do we have troops in Afghanistan? Yes. Did he bomb Libya? Yes.
It isnt that libs dont know anything. Its that so much of what they know is wrong.

 

[Campbell]

Young Americans aren't dying every day and we've had 69 consecutive months of job growth. Just what does it take for you warmongers to get happy?

Yeah....four diplomats who volunteered for hazardous duty and were drawing hazardous duty pay were killed in Benghazi. Bush's deal on the other hand...when he invaded Iraq totally unnecessarily cost 4500 young American lives. You folks aren't very good at math....'course Bush was a C student at Yale so what might one expect?

More GI's have been killed in Afghanistan on Obama's watch than there were on Bush's. We don't know if Obama got C's because he won't release his transcripts. Bush got better grades than John Kerry and I would bet you voted for him.

Obama didn't start the goddam wars.....he ended them! That why all you warmongers hate him. That and the fact that he has a good tan....even better than Boehner's.

Obama ended wars? Which ones? Do we have troops in Iraq? Yes. Do we have troops in Afghanistan? Yes. Did he bomb Libya? Yes.
It isnt that libs dont know anything. Its that so much of what they know is wrong.

Let's see...since you want to keep score...how many young soldiers coffins are coming to Dover each day??

Bush racked up 4500 in Iraq alone......plus 35,000 seriously wounded. That was one helluva price to pay for Bush's personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein for trying to kill his Daddy. The Republicans had been looking for an excuse to jump Hussein for over ten years. This letter they wrote to Clinton proves it:

December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the
magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah....four diplomats who volunteered for hazardous duty and were drawing hazardous duty pay were killed in Benghazi. Bush's deal on the other hand...when he invaded Iraq totally unnecessarily cost 4500 young American lives. You folks aren't very good at math....'course Bush was a C student at Yale so what might one expect?

More GI's have been killed in Afghanistan on Obama's watch than there were on Bush's. We don't know if Obama got C's because he won't release his transcripts. Bush got better grades than John Kerry and I would bet you voted for him.

Obama didn't start the goddam wars.....he ended them! That why all you warmongers hate him. That and the fact that he has a good tan....even better than Boehner's.

Obama ended wars? Which ones? Do we have troops in Iraq? Yes. Do we have troops in Afghanistan? Yes. Did he bomb Libya? Yes.
It isnt that libs dont know anything. Its that so much of what they know is wrong.

Let's see...since you want to keep score...how many young soldiers coffins are coming to Dover each day??

Your surrender on this topic is noted.

 

[TooTall]

Yeah....four diplomats who volunteered for hazardous duty and were drawing hazardous duty pay were killed in Benghazi. Bush's deal on the other hand...when he invaded Iraq totally unnecessarily cost 4500 young American lives. You folks aren't very good at math....'course Bush was a C student at Yale so what might one expect?

More GI's have been killed in Afghanistan on Obama's watch than there were on Bush's. We don't know if Obama got C's because he won't release his transcripts. Bush got better grades than John Kerry and I would bet you voted for him.

Obama didn't start the goddam wars.....he ended them! That why all you warmongers hate him. That and the fact that he has a good tan....even better than Boehner's.

Obama ended wars? Which ones? Do we have troops in Iraq? Yes. Do we have troops in Afghanistan? Yes. Did he bomb Libya? Yes.
It isnt that libs dont know anything. Its that so much of what they know is wrong.

Let's see...since you want to keep score...how many young soldiers coffins are coming to Dover each day??

Bush racked up 4500 in Iraq alone......plus 35,000 seriously wounded. That was one helluva price to pay for Bush's personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein for trying to kill his Daddy. The Republicans had been looking for an excuse to jump Hussein for over ten years. This letter they wrote to Clinton proves it:

December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the
magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

H.J.Res. 114 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
This was a vote to agree to H.J.Res. 114 (107th) in the Senate.

77 YEA
23 NAY

H.J.Res. 114 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
This was a vote to agree to H.J.Res. 114 (107th) in the House.

296 YEA
133 NAY

You lose!

 

[Iceweasel]

Is this thread not turning out as intended?

Nah, the racism is coming through loud and clear. It's almost TOO easy!

If that's all you could see it explains why you're a liberal.

 

[Campbell]

Yeah....four diplomats who volunteered for hazardous duty and were drawing hazardous duty pay were killed in Benghazi. Bush's deal on the other hand...when he invaded Iraq totally unnecessarily cost 4500 young American lives. You folks aren't very good at math....'course Bush was a C student at Yale so what might one expect?

More GI's have been killed in Afghanistan on Obama's watch than there were on Bush's. We don't know if Obama got C's because he won't release his transcripts. Bush got better grades than John Kerry and I would bet you voted for him.

Obama didn't start the goddam wars.....he ended them! That why all you warmongers hate him. That and the fact that he has a good tan....even better than Boehner's.

Obama ended wars? Which ones? Do we have troops in Iraq? Yes. Do we have troops in Afghanistan? Yes. Did he bomb Libya? Yes.
It isnt that libs dont know anything. Its that so much of what they know is wrong.

Let's see...since you want to keep score...how many young soldiers coffins are coming to Dover each day??

Bush racked up 4500 in Iraq alone......plus 35,000 seriously wounded. That was one helluva price to pay for Bush's personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein for trying to kill his Daddy. The Republicans had been looking for an excuse to jump Hussein for over ten years. This letter they wrote to Clinton proves it:

December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the
magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

H.J.Res. 114 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
This was a vote to agree to H.J.Res. 114 (107th) in the Senate.

77 YEA
23 NAY

H.J.Res. 114 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
This was a vote to agree to H.J.Res. 114 (107th) in the House.

296 YEA
133 NAY

You lose!

Yeah....four diplomats who volunteered for hazardous duty and were drawing hazardous duty pay were killed in Benghazi. Bush's deal on the other hand...when he invaded Iraq totally unnecessarily cost 4500 young American lives. You folks aren't very good at math....'course Bush was a C student at Yale so what might one expect?

More GI's have been killed in Afghanistan on Obama's watch than there were on Bush's. We don't know if Obama got C's because he won't release his transcripts. Bush got better grades than John Kerry and I would bet you voted for him.

Obama didn't start the goddam wars.....he ended them! That why all you warmongers hate him. That and the fact that he has a good tan....even better than Boehner's.

Obama ended wars? Which ones? Do we have troops in Iraq? Yes. Do we have troops in Afghanistan? Yes. Did he bomb Libya? Yes.
It isnt that libs dont know anything. Its that so much of what they know is wrong.

Let's see...since you want to keep score...how many young soldiers coffins are coming to Dover each day??

Your surrender on this topic is noted.

Bush and his cabinet told 935 documented lies leading up to the unnecessary invasion of Iraq:

Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war - CNN.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

View attachment 58582

LMAO!!!

James Woods.....what a goddam authority

Address what is said,not who said it. Woods is 100% correct, Obungles is merely a puppet

Young Americans aren't dying every day and we've had 69 consecutive months of job growth. Just what does it take for you warmongers to get happy?

Yeah....four diplomats who volunteered for hazardous duty and were drawing hazardous duty pay were killed in Benghazi. Bush's deal on the other hand...when he invaded Iraq totally unnecessarily cost 4500 young American lives. You folks aren't very good at math....'course Bush was a C student at Yale and he's your hero so what might one expect?

Blah blah blah, you love Obama and all his drone strikes and illegal wars

 

[TooTall]

More GI's have been killed in Afghanistan on Obama's watch than there were on Bush's. We don't know if Obama got C's because he won't release his transcripts. Bush got better grades than John Kerry and I would bet you voted for him.

Obama didn't start the goddam wars.....he ended them! That why all you warmongers hate him. That and the fact that he has a good tan....even better than Boehner's.

Obama ended wars? Which ones? Do we have troops in Iraq? Yes. Do we have troops in Afghanistan? Yes. Did he bomb Libya? Yes.
It isnt that libs dont know anything. Its that so much of what they know is wrong.

Let's see...since you want to keep score...how many young soldiers coffins are coming to Dover each day??

Bush racked up 4500 in Iraq alone......plus 35,000 seriously wounded. That was one helluva price to pay for Bush's personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein for trying to kill his Daddy. The Republicans had been looking for an excuse to jump Hussein for over ten years. This letter they wrote to Clinton proves it:

December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the
magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

H.J.Res. 114 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
This was a vote to agree to H.J.Res. 114 (107th) in the Senate.

77 YEA
23 NAY

H.J.Res. 114 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
This was a vote to agree to H.J.Res. 114 (107th) in the House.

296 YEA
133 NAY

You lose!

More GI's have been killed in Afghanistan on Obama's watch than there were on Bush's. We don't know if Obama got C's because he won't release his transcripts. Bush got better grades than John Kerry and I would bet you voted for him.

Obama didn't start the goddam wars.....he ended them! That why all you warmongers hate him. That and the fact that he has a good tan....even better than Boehner's.

Obama ended wars? Which ones? Do we have troops in Iraq? Yes. Do we have troops in Afghanistan? Yes. Did he bomb Libya? Yes.
It isnt that libs dont know anything. Its that so much of what they know is wrong.

Let's see...since you want to keep score...how many young soldiers coffins are coming to Dover each day??

Your surrender on this topic is noted.

Bush and his cabinet told 935 documented lies leading up to the unnecessary invasion of Iraq:

Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war - CNN.com

Were any of them repeating what these two Democrats said?

"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 | Source


"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 | Source