ONCE and for ALL. TELL ME DID THESE People LIE ALSO???

[KNB]

Translation = Stop trying to argue against declassified government documents. You just sound like a crazy person.

Declassified Bush government documents say that it doesn't matter what Democrats said in the 1990s because Bush lied about Iraq from 2001 until he invaded, and then he kept lying.

 

[Redfish]

Translation = Stop trying to argue against declassified government documents. You just sound like a crazy person.

Declassified Bush government documents say that it doesn't matter what Democrats said in the 1990s because Bush lied about Iraq from 2001 until he invaded, and then he kept lying.

NO, thats not what they say. But you and your lib butt buddies can continue to lie about it if it makes you feel good. Anyone with a functioning brain knows that the dems had the same access to info and made the same conclusions about it.

 

[KNB]

Yes, that is what the declassified Bush government documents say. You just don't want to read them and face reality because that would mean that the GOP is not the perfect Christian downhome good ol' boy party that you think they are. They're lying scumfuck politicians and war criminals just like Democrats.

Why can't you just admit it? No WMD in Iraq means "No WMD in Iraq". Bush lied to you.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The invasion and war were sold by scaring people with mushroom clouds. Once -- after we had already gone in -- it was determined that oops, maybe there are no nukes, we suddenly became so terribly concerned about freedom for Iraqi people. They had to sell something, and that was the best angle they could come up with. So, a trillion plus dollars and thousands of American lives, limbs and minds later, we're still pretending to care while ignoring the fact that people are being made to suffer in plenty of other places, too.

The Democrats who also voted for it were misled, or contrary information was withheld, or felt they had to vote that way to keep their jobs, or actually believed that shit, or some combination therein.

I don't care. I do know who pushed like hell for the war and who was responsible for the final decision to put us in that fucking quagmire.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

HOW many times have we heard "Bush lied People DIED"!!!

When will you Bush BASHERs ever get it through your thick heads... BUSH wasn't then THE ONLY ONE lying!

I mean EVEN SADDAM LIED .. why else would he let 500,000 children die of starvation RATHER then completely certify
he had NO WMDs?

And because he wouldn't THESE DEMOCRATS LIKE Bush believed Saddam had WMDs.

Once 9/11 occurred it became really evident that Saddam who wouldn't agree he did NOT have WMDs was also paying
terrorists for suicide attacks..(In case you didn't know or selectively forgot...)

Investigators who have been following a money trail say the former Iraqi president tapped secret bank accounts in Jordan - where he collected bribes from foreign companies and individuals doing illicit business under the humanitarian program - to reward the families up to $25,000 each.
Documents prepared for a Wednesday hearing by the House International Relations Committee outline the new findings about how Saddam funneled money to the Palestinian families.
Saddam's Suicide Bomb Funds - CBS News

So if he did that why in the hell would he NOT help in attacking the USA??


"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. 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 ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

Bush pulled the trigger. That's the only relevant fact here.

 

[Redfish]

Yes, that is what the declassified Bush government documents say. You just don't want to read them and face reality because that would mean that the GOP is not the perfect Christian downhome good ol' boy party that you think they are. They're lying scumfuck politicians and war criminals just like Democrats.

Why can't you just admit it? No WMD in Iraq means "No WMD in Iraq". Bush lied to you.

I have read them. They all either lied or were mislead by the intel. The ALL had the same access. You are lying about what happened and who did it.

 

[Redfish]

HOW many times have we heard "Bush lied People DIED"!!!

When will you Bush BASHERs ever get it through your thick heads... BUSH wasn't then THE ONLY ONE lying!

I mean EVEN SADDAM LIED .. why else would he let 500,000 children die of starvation RATHER then completely certify
he had NO WMDs?

And because he wouldn't THESE DEMOCRATS LIKE Bush believed Saddam had WMDs.

Once 9/11 occurred it became really evident that Saddam who wouldn't agree he did NOT have WMDs was also paying
terrorists for suicide attacks..(In case you didn't know or selectively forgot...)

Investigators who have been following a money trail say the former Iraqi president tapped secret bank accounts in Jordan - where he collected bribes from foreign companies and individuals doing illicit business under the humanitarian program - to reward the families up to $25,000 each.
Documents prepared for a Wednesday hearing by the House International Relations Committee outline the new findings about how Saddam funneled money to the Palestinian families.
Saddam's Suicide Bomb Funds - CBS News

So if he did that why in the hell would he NOT help in attacking the USA??


"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. 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 ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

Bush pulled the trigger. That's the only relevant fact here.

He could not have pulled the trigger without authorization and funding from congress. Both parties in congress authorized and funded that waste of american lives and money.

They are all responsible. Get over the partisan bullshit and face the TRUTH

 

[Redfish]

.

The invasion and war were sold by scaring people with mushroom clouds. Once -- after we had already gone in -- it was determined that oops, maybe there are no nukes, we suddenly became so terribly concerned about freedom for Iraqi people. They had to sell something, and that was the best angle they could come up with. So, a trillion plus dollars and thousands of American lives, limbs and minds later, we're still pretending to care while ignoring the fact that people are being made to suffer in plenty of other places, too.

The Democrats who also voted for it were misled, or contrary information was withheld, or felt they had to vote that way to keep their jobs, or actually believed that shit, or some combination therein.

I don't care. I do know who pushed like hell for the war and who was responsible for the final decision to put us in that fucking quagmire.

.

the dem quotes earlier in the thread verify that they are all responsible. To put it all on Bush is ignorant of the facts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

HOW many times have we heard "Bush lied People DIED"!!!

When will you Bush BASHERs ever get it through your thick heads... BUSH wasn't then THE ONLY ONE lying!

I mean EVEN SADDAM LIED .. why else would he let 500,000 children die of starvation RATHER then completely certify
he had NO WMDs?

And because he wouldn't THESE DEMOCRATS LIKE Bush believed Saddam had WMDs.

Once 9/11 occurred it became really evident that Saddam who wouldn't agree he did NOT have WMDs was also paying
terrorists for suicide attacks..(In case you didn't know or selectively forgot...)

Investigators who have been following a money trail say the former Iraqi president tapped secret bank accounts in Jordan - where he collected bribes from foreign companies and individuals doing illicit business under the humanitarian program - to reward the families up to $25,000 each.
Documents prepared for a Wednesday hearing by the House International Relations Committee outline the new findings about how Saddam funneled money to the Palestinian families.
Saddam's Suicide Bomb Funds - CBS News

So if he did that why in the hell would he NOT help in attacking the USA??


"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. 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 ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

Bush pulled the trigger. That's the only relevant fact here.

He could not have pulled the trigger without authorization and funding from congress. Both parties in congress authorized and funded that waste of american lives and money.

They are all responsible. Get over the partisan bullshit and face the TRUTH

21 times as many Democrats voted against that authorization as did Republicans.

If you people want to make the disaster of Iraq partisan, then Republicans were 21 times more to blame than were Democrats.

I'll accept that allocation of blame. Will you?

 

[Mac1958]

.

The invasion and war were sold by scaring people with mushroom clouds. Once -- after we had already gone in -- it was determined that oops, maybe there are no nukes, we suddenly became so terribly concerned about freedom for Iraqi people. They had to sell something, and that was the best angle they could come up with. So, a trillion plus dollars and thousands of American lives, limbs and minds later, we're still pretending to care while ignoring the fact that people are being made to suffer in plenty of other places, too.

The Democrats who also voted for it were misled, or contrary information was withheld, or felt they had to vote that way to keep their jobs, or actually believed that shit, or some combination therein.

I don't care. I do know who pushed like hell for the war and who was responsible for the final decision to put us in that fucking quagmire.

.

the dem quotes earlier in the thread verify that they are all responsible. To put it all on Bush is ignorant of the facts.

He was the Commander in Chief and responsible. His was the final word, and his whole team was screaming for this at full volume.

Once it was sold to Congress, it was his call. Yes or no. Go or not.

Was there someone above him at that time? If so, give me a name and I'll blame him or her.

.

 

[KNB]

The Desert Crossing war games, which amounted to a feasibility study for part of the main war plan for Iraq -- OPLAN 1003-98 -- tested "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios of a post-war, post-Saddam, Iraq. The After Action Report presented its recommendations for further planning regarding regime change in Iraq and was an interagency production assisted by the departments of defense and state, as well as the National Security Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency, among others.

The results of Desert Crossing, however, drew pessimistic conclusions regarding the immediate possible outcomes of such action. Some of these conclusions are interestingly similar to the events which actually occurred after Saddam was overthrown. The report forewarned that regime change may cause regional instability by opening the doors to "rival forces bidding for power" which, in turn, could cause societal "fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines" and antagonize "aggressive neighbors." Further, the report illuminated worries that secure borders and a restoration of civil order may not be enough to stabilize Iraq if the replacement government were perceived as weak, subservient to outside powers, or out of touch with other regional governments. An exit strategy, the report said, would also be complicated by differing visions for a post-Saddam Iraq among those involved in the conflict.
Post-Saddam Iraq: The War Game

The Pentagon team would portray a "new Iraq" offering hope of a prosperous and democratic future, which would serve as a model for the Middle East. American, British, and Iraqi media experts would be hand-picked to provide "approved USG information" for the Iraqi public, while an ensuing "strategic information campaign" would be part of a "likely 1-2 years . . . transition" to a representative government. A new weekly Iraqi newspaper would feature "Hollywood" along with the news.

Defense Department planners envisioned a post-invasion Iraq where the U.S., in cooperation with a friendly Baghdad government, could monopolize information dissemination. They did not account for independent media outlets, the Internet, and all the other alternative sources of information that are available in the modern world. The U.S. media campaign has not been able to control the message - but its execution was privatized, and contracting has made it a profitable enterprise for those able to capitalize on the Pentagon's largesse.
Iraq: The Media War Plan

Washington, D.C., August 17, 2005: Newly declassified State Department documents show that government experts warned the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in early 2003 about "serious planning gaps for post-conflict public security and humanitarian assistance," well before Operation Iraqi Freedom began.

In a February 7, 2003, memo to Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky, three senior Department officials noted CENTCOM's "focus on its primary military objectives and its reluctance to take on 'policing' roles," but warned that "a failure to address short-term public security and humanitarian assistance concerns could result in serious human rights abuses which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally." The memo adds "We have raised these issues with top CENTCOM officials."

By contrast, a December 2003 report to Congress, also released by the State Department, offers a relatively rosy picture of the security situation, saying U.S. forces are "increasingly successful in preventing planned hostile attacks; and in capturing former regime loyalists, would-be terrorists and planners; and seizing weapons caches." The document acknowledges that "Challenges remain."

Since then, 1,393 U.S. military fatalities have been recorded in Iraq, including two on the day the report went to Congress.

The new documents, released this month to the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act, also provide more evidence on when the Bush administration began planning for regime change in Iraq -- as early as October 2001.

The declassified records relate mainly to the so-called "Future of Iraq Project," an effort, initially run by the State Department then by the Pentagon, to plan for the transition to a new regime after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. They provide detail on each of the working groups and give the starting date for planning as October 2001.
State Department experts warned CENTCOM before Iraq war about lack of plans for post-war Iraq security

It sounds like either Bush lied, or Bush was entirely incompetent, or both.

 

[healthmyths]

Where were your equivalent Bush Bashers during WWII?

I mean we ALL KNOW FDR "pulled the trigger" that killed 407,000 (including 1,900 members of the U.S. Coast Guard) American soldiers.

How did the U.S. wage undeclared war? First, it violated fundamental principles of neutrality under international law by assisting and arming one of the warring sides. Through Roosevelt's lend-lease plan, millions of dollars of American military hardware was shipped to Great Britain as well as to the Soviet Union thereby encouraging a counterattack by Germany on America's ships. But having learned its lesson in World War I when Wilson duped the public into believing the German’s attacked and sunk a US ship the Germans refused to take the bait.
German Admiral Raeder gave specific orders to the U Boats to not attack US shipping.

So, Roosevelt proceeded to go further.
He began using American military convoys to ship goods to Britain which was another act of war under international law.
How Wars are started...FDR lies America into WWII

 

[KNB]

That's your problem, monkey. I give you declassified government documents and you offer "godlikeproductions.com" as if that is supposed to hold the same weight. Have you ever been to college? Have you ever written a paper that requires you to cite your sources?

Weaselzippers, Godlike Productions, Stormfront, etc. are not real references. You would get an F and not graduate.

 

[healthmyths]

Bush pulled the trigger. That's the only relevant fact here.

He could not have pulled the trigger without authorization and funding from congress. Both parties in congress authorized and funded that waste of american lives and money.

They are all responsible. Get over the partisan bullshit and face the TRUTH

21 times as many Democrats voted against that authorization as did Republicans.

If you people want to make the disaster of Iraq partisan, then Republicans were 21 times more to blame than were Democrats.

I'll accept that allocation of blame. Will you?

Of course I will accept on behalf of the compassionate people that put the lives of 100,000 children a year ahead of 100 US soldiers who sworn an oath to uphold
their duty to their country. In this case Iraq Liberation was over by 5/1/2003. Less the 100 soldiers died.
It was though the responsibility of the Democrats for prolonging the war and here is the proof!
Harvard study shows that statements like these by congressional leaders encouraged the terrorists.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

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

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

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"



FACT:LOOK at this Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

asked: "Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. (wouldn't you conclude the next president accusing the US military of methodically and systematically air raiding villages killing civilians.. dissent???) We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

 

[KNB]

The soldiers swore an oath to defend the US Constitution. Torture and invading countries over lies doesn't have anything to do with their oath of service.

 

[Redfish]

The soldiers swore an oath to defend the US Constitution. Torture and invading countries over lies doesn't have anything to do with their oath of service.

posting failed talking points after you have lost the debate just makes you look like a fool.

 

[healthmyths]

And these Congressmen ALSO swore an oath to defend our country and NOT help the enemy by making comments like these that cost 4,000 more lives!

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

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

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

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

FACT: NOTE: Is this scholarly enough for you?

LOOK at this Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

asked: "Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. (wouldn't you conclude the next president accusing the US military of methodically and systematically air raiding villages killing civilians.. dissent???) We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent

 

[KNB]

The soldiers swore an oath to defend the US Constitution. Torture and invading countries over lies doesn't have anything to do with their oath of service.

posting failed talking points after you have lost the debate just makes you look like a fool.

Declassified Bush government documents.

 

[NYcarbineer]

He could not have pulled the trigger without authorization and funding from congress. Both parties in congress authorized and funded that waste of american lives and money.

They are all responsible. Get over the partisan bullshit and face the TRUTH

21 times as many Democrats voted against that authorization as did Republicans.

If you people want to make the disaster of Iraq partisan, then Republicans were 21 times more to blame than were Democrats.

I'll accept that allocation of blame. Will you?

Of course I will accept on behalf of the compassionate people that put the lives of 100,000 children a year ahead of 100 US soldiers who sworn an oath to uphold
their duty to their country. In this case Iraq Liberation was over by 5/1/2003. Less the 100 soldiers died.
It was though the responsibility of the Democrats for prolonging the war and here is the proof!
Harvard study shows that statements like these by congressional leaders encouraged the terrorists.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

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

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

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"



FACT:LOOK at this Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

asked: "Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. (wouldn't you conclude the next president accusing the US military of methodically and systematically air raiding villages killing civilians.. dissent???) We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

Is this your way of condemning anyone who expresses dissent over President Obama's foreign policy involving the military?

 

[healthmyths]

The soldiers swore an oath to defend the US Constitution. Torture and invading countries over lies doesn't have anything to do with their oath of service.

posting failed talking points after you have lost the debate just makes you look like a fool.

So it's OK when Democrats continue to bad mouth our US troops and in doing so HELP prolonging the Iraq Liberation?
These Congressmen are responsible for not only 4,000 more deaths then necessary BUT they also now are part of the group helping IS/IS
take over Iraq!