Ol' Prez

[The Rabbi]

Tens of thousands? Check your numbers, asshole.
More American soldiers died in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush. Think about it.

Kinda unfair the way you cowboys don't count the effort to stop wars.....which is exactly what Obama did. A goddamned cowboy wannabe who didn't even know the difference in a Shiite and a Sunni started two wars....one of them totally unnecessary and you want to dedicate them to Obama because it took him a while to get out of them. In the history of this country there's never been a war more unnecessary or unwanted by everyone except the Republicans than the invasion of Iraq.....which had done no harm to the United States, and it was started by a nincompoop who didn't know his ass from a bass drum! Bush and his cabinet told 935 bare faced, documented lies to gain support to attack and remove Saddam Hussein:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday.

"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003," reads an overview of the examination, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

According to the study, Bush and seven top officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- made 935 false statements about Iraq during those two years.

The study was based on a searchable database compiled of primary sources, such as official government transcripts and speeches, and secondary sources -- mainly quotes from major media organizations. See CNN viewers' reactions to the study »

The study says Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq's links to al Qaeda.

Bush has consistently asserted that at the time he and other officials made the statements, the intelligence community of the U.S. and several other nations, including Britain, believed Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

• Bush ties Mideast peace effort to fight on terror
• Ex-aide: Bush, Cheney involved in misleading media

Responding to the study Wednesday, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not speak directly to the "false claims" characterization.

But he said the United States was part of a broad coalition of nations that took part in the Iraq invasion and that the invasion was based on intelligence from multiple countries.

He called Hussein a threat to international security and a sponsor of terrorism, and said the world is better off without him. White House press secretary Dana Perino called the study "flawed."

"They only looked at members of the administration, rather than looking at members of Congress or people around the world," she said. "Because as you'll remember, we were part of a broad coalition of countries that deposed a dictator based on a collective understanding of the intelligence."

"And the other thing that that study fails to do is to say that after realizing that there was no WMD, as we thought as a collective body that there was, that this White House, the President set about to make reforms in the intelligence community to make sure that it doesn't happen again."

Bush has repeatedly said that despite the intelligence flaws, removing Hussein from power was the right thing to do.

The study, released Tuesday, says Powell had the second-highest number of false statements, with 244 about weapons and 10 about Iraq and al Qaeda.

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Press Secretary Ari Fleischer each made 109 false statements, it says. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz made 85, Rice made 56, Cheney made 48 and Scott McLellan, also a press secretary, made 14, the study says.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al Qaeda," the report reads, citing multiple government reports, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the 9/11 Commission and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, which reported that Hussein had suspended Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to revive it.

The overview of the study also calls the media to task, saying most media outlets didn't do enough to investigate the claims.

"Some journalists -- indeed, even some entire news organizations -- have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical," the report reads.

The quotes in the study include an August 26, 2002, statement by Cheney to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said. "There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Your deflection is noted.
First you maintained that Obama stopped Bush's wars. When it was pointed out we still have troops fighting in Iraq and 'stan then it became, well we dont have as many casualties.
When we pointed out there were more casualties in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush it became "Bush sent 10k young men to their deaths!"
When we pointed out the number of casualties was nowhere near 10k it became "Bush started two wars!"

Of course Bush did not start two wars. He started no wars. Saddam could have complied with the conditions and avoided wwar. The Taliban could have complied with the demands and avoided war.
So what is it goingt o be now, Mr. ShitforBrains?

Horse shit! The Republicans had been looking for an excuse to invade Iraq for ten years. I put the letter in a post above which all significant Republicans signed all but begging Bill Clinton to take him out but I guess you can't read....or don't like to. It was reported that Donald Rumsfeld ordered his staff and advisors to write a plan for an invasion within thirty minutes on 9/11 when the plane crashed into the Pentagon. They were chompin at the bits to get tens of thousands of young Americans killed. Oh....excuse me, thousands.

You did not refute my point. Saddam started the war in Iraq by refusing US terms. The Taliban started the war in Afghanistan by refusing demands.
You are deflecting. And failing. Try again, asshole.

You just told a goddamned bare faced lie but what else is new. Damn strange that you believe someone in a sovereign nation has to accept terms from some cowboy wannabe when his country is 10,000 miles away and hasn't done a damn thing to harm the U S. History will show that George W. Bush took over an unemployment rate of 4.1%, a balanced budget with surpluses projected to the out years, a bristling economy with a gaining stock market then immediately cut taxes for the rich...twice, started two hot wars, wrecked the economy and doubled the debt not to mention totally ruining everything about the economy. There were 6,000 killed in his hunt for Osama Bin Laden and he not only didn't get him after swearing that he would he declared that he no longer worried about him. 'Course we're talking about a C student here so what might one expect? Not to worry.....Obama hunted down and killed Bin Laden!

Your capacity for self deception is breath taking. How many rads did you take on the job to your skull?
In fact Bush presented Saddam with an ultimatum because Saddam was flagrantly violating the truce he had made. Bush presented an ultimatum to the Taliban because they were harboring the mastermind of 9/11 and they refused. Either one could have avoided war.
And the Congress could have prevented war by voting against the authorization. But Democrats sensed war was popular and they piled on, passing the resolution. That includes Hillary Clinton.
Spin that, asshole.

 

[HappyJoy]

5th worst person of 2015:

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

Kim Davis tops that list that you endorse.

 

[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

Kim Davis tops that list that you endorse.

So? Does her being on the list somehow remove Hillary from the list?

 

[Campbell]

Kinda unfair the way you cowboys don't count the effort to stop wars.....which is exactly what Obama did. A goddamned cowboy wannabe who didn't even know the difference in a Shiite and a Sunni started two wars....one of them totally unnecessary and you want to dedicate them to Obama because it took him a while to get out of them. In the history of this country there's never been a war more unnecessary or unwanted by everyone except the Republicans than the invasion of Iraq.....which had done no harm to the United States, and it was started by a nincompoop who didn't know his ass from a bass drum! Bush and his cabinet told 935 bare faced, documented lies to gain support to attack and remove Saddam Hussein:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday.

"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003," reads an overview of the examination, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

According to the study, Bush and seven top officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- made 935 false statements about Iraq during those two years.

The study was based on a searchable database compiled of primary sources, such as official government transcripts and speeches, and secondary sources -- mainly quotes from major media organizations. See CNN viewers' reactions to the study »

The study says Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq's links to al Qaeda.

Bush has consistently asserted that at the time he and other officials made the statements, the intelligence community of the U.S. and several other nations, including Britain, believed Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

• Bush ties Mideast peace effort to fight on terror
• Ex-aide: Bush, Cheney involved in misleading media

Responding to the study Wednesday, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not speak directly to the "false claims" characterization.

But he said the United States was part of a broad coalition of nations that took part in the Iraq invasion and that the invasion was based on intelligence from multiple countries.

He called Hussein a threat to international security and a sponsor of terrorism, and said the world is better off without him. White House press secretary Dana Perino called the study "flawed."

"They only looked at members of the administration, rather than looking at members of Congress or people around the world," she said. "Because as you'll remember, we were part of a broad coalition of countries that deposed a dictator based on a collective understanding of the intelligence."

"And the other thing that that study fails to do is to say that after realizing that there was no WMD, as we thought as a collective body that there was, that this White House, the President set about to make reforms in the intelligence community to make sure that it doesn't happen again."

Bush has repeatedly said that despite the intelligence flaws, removing Hussein from power was the right thing to do.

The study, released Tuesday, says Powell had the second-highest number of false statements, with 244 about weapons and 10 about Iraq and al Qaeda.

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Press Secretary Ari Fleischer each made 109 false statements, it says. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz made 85, Rice made 56, Cheney made 48 and Scott McLellan, also a press secretary, made 14, the study says.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al Qaeda," the report reads, citing multiple government reports, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the 9/11 Commission and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, which reported that Hussein had suspended Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to revive it.

The overview of the study also calls the media to task, saying most media outlets didn't do enough to investigate the claims.

"Some journalists -- indeed, even some entire news organizations -- have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical," the report reads.

The quotes in the study include an August 26, 2002, statement by Cheney to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said. "There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Your deflection is noted.
First you maintained that Obama stopped Bush's wars. When it was pointed out we still have troops fighting in Iraq and 'stan then it became, well we dont have as many casualties.
When we pointed out there were more casualties in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush it became "Bush sent 10k young men to their deaths!"
When we pointed out the number of casualties was nowhere near 10k it became "Bush started two wars!"

Of course Bush did not start two wars. He started no wars. Saddam could have complied with the conditions and avoided wwar. The Taliban could have complied with the demands and avoided war.
So what is it goingt o be now, Mr. ShitforBrains?

Horse shit! The Republicans had been looking for an excuse to invade Iraq for ten years. I put the letter in a post above which all significant Republicans signed all but begging Bill Clinton to take him out but I guess you can't read....or don't like to. It was reported that Donald Rumsfeld ordered his staff and advisors to write a plan for an invasion within thirty minutes on 9/11 when the plane crashed into the Pentagon. They were chompin at the bits to get tens of thousands of young Americans killed. Oh....excuse me, thousands.

You did not refute my point. Saddam started the war in Iraq by refusing US terms. The Taliban started the war in Afghanistan by refusing demands.
You are deflecting. And failing. Try again, asshole.

You just told a goddamned bare faced lie but what else is new. Damn strange that you believe someone in a sovereign nation has to accept terms from some cowboy wannabe when his country is 10,000 miles away and hasn't done a damn thing to harm the U S. History will show that George W. Bush took over an unemployment rate of 4.1%, a balanced budget with surpluses projected to the out years, a bristling economy with a gaining stock market then immediately cut taxes for the rich...twice, started two hot wars, wrecked the economy and doubled the debt not to mention totally ruining everything about the economy. There were 6,000 killed in his hunt for Osama Bin Laden and he not only didn't get him after swearing that he would he declared that he no longer worried about him. 'Course we're talking about a C student here so what might one expect? Not to worry.....Obama hunted down and killed Bin Laden!

Your capacity for self deception is breath taking. How many rads did you take on the job to your skull?
In fact Bush presented Saddam with an ultimatum because Saddam was flagrantly violating the truce he had made. Bush presented an ultimatum to the Taliban because they were harboring the mastermind of 9/11 and they refused. Either one could have avoided war.
And the Congress could have prevented war by voting against the authorization. But Democrats sensed war was popular and they piled on, passing the resolution. That includes Hillary Clinton.
Spin that, asshole.

Here's the official verbiage:
In 2003, a coalition led by the U.S. invaded Iraq to depose Saddam, in which U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair accused him of possessing weapons of mass destruction and having ties to al-Qaeda. Saddam's Ba'ath party was disbanded and elections were held. Following his capture on 13 December 2003, the trial of Saddam took place under the Iraqi Interim Government. On 5 November 2006, Saddam was convicted of charges related to the 1982 killing of 148 Iraqi Shi'ites, and was sentenced to death by hanging. His execution was carried out on 30 December 2006.

Both charges were false! The only thing that caused the Republicans to be pissed was that in 1993 in Qatar Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush41. They had been looking for a reason to jump his ass ever since. Here's a letter written to Bill Clinton in 1998....check the names of those who signed it carefully....there's not a Democrat among them!

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]

Your deflection is noted.
First you maintained that Obama stopped Bush's wars. When it was pointed out we still have troops fighting in Iraq and 'stan then it became, well we dont have as many casualties.
When we pointed out there were more casualties in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush it became "Bush sent 10k young men to their deaths!"
When we pointed out the number of casualties was nowhere near 10k it became "Bush started two wars!"

Of course Bush did not start two wars. He started no wars. Saddam could have complied with the conditions and avoided wwar. The Taliban could have complied with the demands and avoided war.
So what is it goingt o be now, Mr. ShitforBrains?

Horse shit! The Republicans had been looking for an excuse to invade Iraq for ten years. I put the letter in a post above which all significant Republicans signed all but begging Bill Clinton to take him out but I guess you can't read....or don't like to. It was reported that Donald Rumsfeld ordered his staff and advisors to write a plan for an invasion within thirty minutes on 9/11 when the plane crashed into the Pentagon. They were chompin at the bits to get tens of thousands of young Americans killed. Oh....excuse me, thousands.

You did not refute my point. Saddam started the war in Iraq by refusing US terms. The Taliban started the war in Afghanistan by refusing demands.
You are deflecting. And failing. Try again, asshole.

You just told a goddamned bare faced lie but what else is new. Damn strange that you believe someone in a sovereign nation has to accept terms from some cowboy wannabe when his country is 10,000 miles away and hasn't done a damn thing to harm the U S. History will show that George W. Bush took over an unemployment rate of 4.1%, a balanced budget with surpluses projected to the out years, a bristling economy with a gaining stock market then immediately cut taxes for the rich...twice, started two hot wars, wrecked the economy and doubled the debt not to mention totally ruining everything about the economy. There were 6,000 killed in his hunt for Osama Bin Laden and he not only didn't get him after swearing that he would he declared that he no longer worried about him. 'Course we're talking about a C student here so what might one expect? Not to worry.....Obama hunted down and killed Bin Laden!

Your capacity for self deception is breath taking. How many rads did you take on the job to your skull?
In fact Bush presented Saddam with an ultimatum because Saddam was flagrantly violating the truce he had made. Bush presented an ultimatum to the Taliban because they were harboring the mastermind of 9/11 and they refused. Either one could have avoided war.
And the Congress could have prevented war by voting against the authorization. But Democrats sensed war was popular and they piled on, passing the resolution. That includes Hillary Clinton.
Spin that, asshole.

Here's the official verbiage:
In 2003, a coalition led by the U.S. invaded Iraq to depose Saddam, in which U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair accused him of possessing weapons of mass destruction and having ties to al-Qaeda. Saddam's Ba'ath party was disbanded and elections were held. Following his capture on 13 December 2003, the trial of Saddam took place under the Iraqi Interim Government. On 5 November 2006, Saddam was convicted of charges related to the 1982 killing of 148 Iraqi Shi'ites, and was sentenced to death by hanging. His execution was carried out on 30 December 2006.

Both charges were false! The only thing that caused the Republicans to be pissed was that in 1993 in Qatar Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush41. They had been looking for a reason to jump his ass ever since. Here's a letter written to Bill Clinton in 1998....check the names of those who signed it carefully....there's not a Democrat among them!

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

Campbell. You're a dumbshit. Here is the langugage of the Iraq Resolution, passed with the help of Democrats.
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace

 

[Campbell]

Horse shit! The Republicans had been looking for an excuse to invade Iraq for ten years. I put the letter in a post above which all significant Republicans signed all but begging Bill Clinton to take him out but I guess you can't read....or don't like to. It was reported that Donald Rumsfeld ordered his staff and advisors to write a plan for an invasion within thirty minutes on 9/11 when the plane crashed into the Pentagon. They were chompin at the bits to get tens of thousands of young Americans killed. Oh....excuse me, thousands.

You did not refute my point. Saddam started the war in Iraq by refusing US terms. The Taliban started the war in Afghanistan by refusing demands.
You are deflecting. And failing. Try again, asshole.

You just told a goddamned bare faced lie but what else is new. Damn strange that you believe someone in a sovereign nation has to accept terms from some cowboy wannabe when his country is 10,000 miles away and hasn't done a damn thing to harm the U S. History will show that George W. Bush took over an unemployment rate of 4.1%, a balanced budget with surpluses projected to the out years, a bristling economy with a gaining stock market then immediately cut taxes for the rich...twice, started two hot wars, wrecked the economy and doubled the debt not to mention totally ruining everything about the economy. There were 6,000 killed in his hunt for Osama Bin Laden and he not only didn't get him after swearing that he would he declared that he no longer worried about him. 'Course we're talking about a C student here so what might one expect? Not to worry.....Obama hunted down and killed Bin Laden!

Your capacity for self deception is breath taking. How many rads did you take on the job to your skull?
In fact Bush presented Saddam with an ultimatum because Saddam was flagrantly violating the truce he had made. Bush presented an ultimatum to the Taliban because they were harboring the mastermind of 9/11 and they refused. Either one could have avoided war.
And the Congress could have prevented war by voting against the authorization. But Democrats sensed war was popular and they piled on, passing the resolution. That includes Hillary Clinton.
Spin that, asshole.

Here's the official verbiage:
In 2003, a coalition led by the U.S. invaded Iraq to depose Saddam, in which U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair accused him of possessing weapons of mass destruction and having ties to al-Qaeda. Saddam's Ba'ath party was disbanded and elections were held. Following his capture on 13 December 2003, the trial of Saddam took place under the Iraqi Interim Government. On 5 November 2006, Saddam was convicted of charges related to the 1982 killing of 148 Iraqi Shi'ites, and was sentenced to death by hanging. His execution was carried out on 30 December 2006.

Both charges were false! The only thing that caused the Republicans to be pissed was that in 1993 in Qatar Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush41. They had been looking for a reason to jump his ass ever since. Here's a letter written to Bill Clinton in 1998....check the names of those who signed it carefully....there's not a Democrat among them!

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

Campbell. You're a dumbshit. Here is the langugage of the Iraq Resolution, passed with the help of Democrats.
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace

You're the DumbShit!!! The only thing the Bush administration ever accused Saddam Hussein of was having weapons of mass destruction. Here's a new flash for you...after 935 documented lies about Saddam's WMD's there were none!

Suck On That!!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

View attachment 58582

LMAO!!!

James Woods.....what a goddam authority

Woods has an IQ a hundred times higher than O's.

 

[Campbell]

Horse shit! The Republicans had been looking for an excuse to invade Iraq for ten years. I put the letter in a post above which all significant Republicans signed all but begging Bill Clinton to take him out but I guess you can't read....or don't like to. It was reported that Donald Rumsfeld ordered his staff and advisors to write a plan for an invasion within thirty minutes on 9/11 when the plane crashed into the Pentagon. They were chompin at the bits to get tens of thousands of young Americans killed. Oh....excuse me, thousands.

You did not refute my point. Saddam started the war in Iraq by refusing US terms. The Taliban started the war in Afghanistan by refusing demands.
You are deflecting. And failing. Try again, asshole.

You just told a goddamned bare faced lie but what else is new. Damn strange that you believe someone in a sovereign nation has to accept terms from some cowboy wannabe when his country is 10,000 miles away and hasn't done a damn thing to harm the U S. History will show that George W. Bush took over an unemployment rate of 4.1%, a balanced budget with surpluses projected to the out years, a bristling economy with a gaining stock market then immediately cut taxes for the rich...twice, started two hot wars, wrecked the economy and doubled the debt not to mention totally ruining everything about the economy. There were 6,000 killed in his hunt for Osama Bin Laden and he not only didn't get him after swearing that he would he declared that he no longer worried about him. 'Course we're talking about a C student here so what might one expect? Not to worry.....Obama hunted down and killed Bin Laden!

Your capacity for self deception is breath taking. How many rads did you take on the job to your skull?
In fact Bush presented Saddam with an ultimatum because Saddam was flagrantly violating the truce he had made. Bush presented an ultimatum to the Taliban because they were harboring the mastermind of 9/11 and they refused. Either one could have avoided war.
And the Congress could have prevented war by voting against the authorization. But Democrats sensed war was popular and they piled on, passing the resolution. That includes Hillary Clinton.
Spin that, asshole.

Here's the official verbiage:
In 2003, a coalition led by the U.S. invaded Iraq to depose Saddam, in which U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair accused him of possessing weapons of mass destruction and having ties to al-Qaeda. Saddam's Ba'ath party was disbanded and elections were held. Following his capture on 13 December 2003, the trial of Saddam took place under the Iraqi Interim Government. On 5 November 2006, Saddam was convicted of charges related to the 1982 killing of 148 Iraqi Shi'ites, and was sentenced to death by hanging. His execution was carried out on 30 December 2006.

Both charges were false! The only thing that caused the Republicans to be pissed was that in 1993 in Qatar Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush41. They had been looking for a reason to jump his ass ever since. Here's a letter written to Bill Clinton in 1998....check the names of those who signed it carefully....there's not a Democrat among them!

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

Campbell. You're a dumbshit. Here is the langugage of the Iraq Resolution, passed with the help of Democrats.
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace

I have news for you....Saddam did eliminate any of the named weapons. The only mistake he made was trying to assassinate a cowboy wannabe's Daddy. The 935 documented lies about weapons of mass destruction have been printed and referred to ad nauseum. I can't believe you're hanging onto all the bullshit! It's over and it's a matter of recorded history. Saddam Hussein had never...not once done anything to harm the United States of America except to try to assassinate Bush's Daddy. End Of Report!!

 

[HappyJoy]

5th worst person of 2015:

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

Kim Davis tops that list that you endorse.

So? Does her being on the list somehow remove Hillary from the list?

If you endorse the idea that Kim Davis is a dipshit, I guess not.

 

[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

Kim Davis tops that list that you endorse.

So? Does her being on the list somehow remove Hillary from the list?

If you endorse the idea that Kim Davis is a dipshit, I guess not.

I will agree to that if you will agree that Hillary Clinton is a dipshit as well. Fair enough?

 

[Campbell]

5th worst person of 2015:

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

Kim Davis tops that list that you endorse.

So? Does her being on the list somehow remove Hillary from the list?

If you endorse the idea that Kim Davis is a dipshit, I guess not.

I will agree to that if you will agree that Hillary Clinton is a dipshit as well. Fair enough?

Take a word from an old man....Learn To Say, Madame President!

 

[Campbell]

View attachment 58582

LMAO!!!

James Woods.....what a goddam authority

Woods has an IQ a hundred times higher than O's.

Using that criteria Woods would surpass Einstein and so far I know of no such insinuation.

 

[HappyJoy]

5th worst person of 2015:

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

Kim Davis tops that list that you endorse.

So? Does her being on the list somehow remove Hillary from the list?

If you endorse the idea that Kim Davis is a dipshit, I guess not.

I will agree to that if you will agree that Hillary Clinton is a dipshit as well. Fair enough?

I didn't endorse the list, you did. Why do you hate Christians?

Personally I can't think of any sort of list ever that Kim Davis should be atop of.

 

[Campbell]

5th worst person of 2015:

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

Kim Davis tops that list that you endorse.

So? Does her being on the list somehow remove Hillary from the list?

If you endorse the idea that Kim Davis is a dipshit, I guess not.

I will agree to that if you will agree that Hillary Clinton is a dipshit as well. Fair enough?

I didn't endorse the list, you did. Why do you hate Christians?

Personally I can't think of any sort of list ever that Kim Davis should be atop of.

Are You Sure??

 

[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

Kim Davis tops that list that you endorse.

So? Does her being on the list somehow remove Hillary from the list?

If you endorse the idea that Kim Davis is a dipshit, I guess not.

I will agree to that if you will agree that Hillary Clinton is a dipshit as well. Fair enough?

Take a word from an old man....Learn To Say, Madame President!

I may be older than you. I'm 72. I prefer to say President Trump or President Cruz.

 

[the_human_being]

Kim Davis tops that list that you endorse.

So? Does her being on the list somehow remove Hillary from the list?

If you endorse the idea that Kim Davis is a dipshit, I guess not.

I will agree to that if you will agree that Hillary Clinton is a dipshit as well. Fair enough?

I didn't endorse the list, you did. Why do you hate Christians?

Personally I can't think of any sort of list ever that Kim Davis should be atop of.

Are You Sure??

Right back at you. She's certainly no Christian and you endorse her.

 

[HappyJoy]

Kim Davis tops that list that you endorse.

So? Does her being on the list somehow remove Hillary from the list?

If you endorse the idea that Kim Davis is a dipshit, I guess not.

I will agree to that if you will agree that Hillary Clinton is a dipshit as well. Fair enough?

I didn't endorse the list, you did. Why do you hate Christians?

Personally I can't think of any sort of list ever that Kim Davis should be atop of.

Are You Sure??

Yeah, in the end she just didn't make much of a difference.

 

[Campbell]

Kim Davis tops that list that you endorse.

So? Does her being on the list somehow remove Hillary from the list?

If you endorse the idea that Kim Davis is a dipshit, I guess not.

I will agree to that if you will agree that Hillary Clinton is a dipshit as well. Fair enough?

Take a word from an old man....Learn To Say, Madame President!

I may be older than you. I'm 72. I prefer to say President Trump or President Cruz.

A mere child...I'm 81.

I'm tired of seeing more tax cuts for the rich and higher debts. I'm cold tired of the Republicans. Don't concern yourself. After Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Lesbians, the Poor and most women vote the Republicans won't see the white house again. It'll get even better when Hillary appoints a couple or three justices to the supreme court:

 

[the_human_being]

So? Does her being on the list somehow remove Hillary from the list?

If you endorse the idea that Kim Davis is a dipshit, I guess not.

I will agree to that if you will agree that Hillary Clinton is a dipshit as well. Fair enough?

Take a word from an old man....Learn To Say, Madame President!

I may be older than you. I'm 72. I prefer to say President Trump or President Cruz.

A mere child...I'm 81.

I'm tired of seeing more tax cuts for the rich and higher debts. I'm cold tired of the Republicans. Don't concern yourself. After Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Lesbians, the Poor and most women vote the Republicans won't see the white house again. It'll get even better when Hillary appoints a couple or three justices to the supreme court:

I don't suppose I need to point out that the rolls of those on Medicare, EBT, and other federal assistance programs have risen significantly under Democrat leadership while employment participation has decreased significantly. The national debt has also increased more under Obama than under all the other Presidents.

 

[Stephanie]

this is who the op has the hot's for.

someone should hose the op down. Chrissy Matthews beat you by having more tingles for the idiot than you