over 700 billion !! thats what the US spends on NATO annually !!

[jillian]

Clinton & Obama reduced US spending on NATO. Bush & Trump EXPLODED SPENDING!!!

Yeah, and Bush had to rebuild our military because Clinton gutted it. Obama almost hallowed out our military, which is why Iraq and Afghanistan both ended up in chaos, under his supervision.

They are in Chaos because baby bush started two unnecessary wars of choice which destabilized the region.

Facts.....acquaint yourself with them.

 

[busybee01]

I thought we had stopped your foot chewing compulsion. Back to square one.

we spend 3.5 % of gdp on NATO thats a lot of money !

No where near 700 billion by a loooooong shot but proportionally we're twice to fifteen times the size of all the other members. so it's relational.

That’s because we are idiots obsessed with having the biggest dog on the block

We are the biggest dog on the block....... for now........ Who do you want to take our place?

We spend 46 cents of every military dollar on earth

I don’t think we have to fear anyone

China is challenging us in Southeast Asia, Russia is in Ukraine and attacked us in Syria, and Iran in the Middle East.

 

[busybee01]

Clinton & Obama reduced US spending on NATO. Bush & Trump EXPLODED SPENDING!!!

Yeah, and Bush had to rebuild our military because Clinton gutted it. Obama almost hallowed out our military, which is why Iraq and Afghanistan both ended up in chaos, under his supervision.

They are in Chaos because baby bush started two unnecessary wars of choice which destabilized the region.

Facts.....acquaint yourself with them.

You need to acquaint yourself with facts. Iraq was a success until Obama withdrew prematurely. Bush warned what would happen if we withdrew prematurely and it did happen as he predicted.

 

[busybee01]

NATO is obsolete. The world has changed dramatically since its creation. The EU is made up of very wealthy powerful nations. Europe is more than capable of defending itself at this point. I stopped supporting NATO the day it transitioned from a defensive entity into an offensive entity.

NATO is now an aggressor. It's all over the world bombing and starting wars. It's bombing nations that are absolutely no threat to Europe and the US. So it's no longer serving the purpose it was created for. Europe can defend itself at this point. Time to disband NATO.

You really are a fool. Russia is the aggressor all over the world. They are in Ukraine as well as the Middle East. The fact is that threats that involve NATO can come from other places other than Europe.

 

[Dschrute3]

US Taxpayers rebuilt Europe after the War. All the wonderful prosperity Europe is experiencing today, is all due to US Taxpayers. But it seems most Europeans have forgotten that. They've been very stingy when it comes to NATO.

So, the day has come to end NATO. The EU consists of very wealthy powerful nations. Some of them are Nuclear Powers. Europe can defend itself at this point. Europe should just graciously thank Americans for their incredible generosity, and then agree to disband NATO. Time to bring all that Taxpayer cash back home.

 

[AntonToo]

Damn !! i may have gotten the math wrong on this one !! oh well i could just humbly admit that i was wrong ......naaahhhh fuck all of you !!

Get lost little man.

 

[Dschrute3]

NATO is obsolete. The world has changed dramatically since its creation. The EU is made up of very wealthy powerful nations. Europe is more than capable of defending itself at this point. I stopped supporting NATO the day it transitioned from a defensive entity into an offensive entity.

NATO is now an aggressor. It's all over the world bombing and starting wars. It's bombing nations that are absolutely no threat to Europe and the US. So it's no longer serving the purpose it was created for. Europe can defend itself at this point. Time to disband NATO.

You really are a fool. Russia is the aggressor all over the world. They are in Ukraine as well as the Middle East. The fact is that threats that involve NATO can come from other places other than Europe.

NATO is by far the biggest aggressor in the world. It's all around the world bombing nations that are no threat whatsoever to Europe and the US. It's no longer serving the purpose it was created for. It isn't defensive, it's become an aggressor.

And the EU is made up of very wealthy Nuclear Power nations. So Europe can defend itself at this point. US Taxpayers rebuilt Europe after the War. Europe is now experiencing wonderful prosperity. And that's all due to US Taxpayers. So now it's time to declare Mission Accomplished over there, and end NATO. Let's give US Taxpayers a much-earned break.

 

[Andylusion]

A war monger country?
You stupid ass.

Ever heard of Iraq.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

yeah the same country that invaded Kuwait ...an ally of the US !

So, we invaded Iraq because they invaded Kuwait 10 year prior and got their ass kicked when they did so...yep sounds like war mongering to me

We had an agreement with Iraq to disarm, that ended the war in 1991.

Iraq failed to uphold their end of the agreement. Additionally, based on the intelligence data we had available at the time, we had reason to believe that Saddam was continuing their WMDs program. This conclusion was validated from several sources including European sources.

The fact we did not find massive operational WMD programs in Iraq, does not change the fact that prior to, all the evidence we had at the time suggested they did.

Regardless of what you can say with 20/20 hind sight, doesn't change the fact that a president must go based on the evidence he has, not the evidence he might theoretically have in the future.

This is also why Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and a host of democrats throughout government, all support taking action in Iraq, and only started the "bush lied and people died" routine, when they found it was politically favorable to do so.

Just like all the anti-torture people in Congress, were fully aware and supportive of "enhanced interrogation" prior to it becoming a political win.

Please. No one paying attention thought Saddam had operational womd programs when W invaded. It was NOT over womd. It was about nation building and installing a democracy. And neither turned out to be the total loss critics like me expected.

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.



“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
Dec, 5, 2001.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction. “[W]ithout 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 has 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.

Which of these quotes leading up to the war, by Democrats, do you think are fabricated, and provide proof.

 

[AntonToo]

NATO is obsolete. The world has changed dramatically since its creation. The EU is made up of very wealthy powerful nations. Europe is more than capable of defending itself at this point. I stopped supporting NATO the day it transitioned from a defensive entity into an offensive entity.

NATO is now an aggressor. It's all over the world bombing and starting wars. It's bombing nations that are absolutely no threat to Europe and the US. So it's no longer serving the purpose it was created for. Europe can defend itself at this point. Time to disband NATO.

You really are a fool. Russia is the aggressor all over the world. They are in Ukraine as well as the Middle East. The fact is that threats that involve NATO can come from other places other than Europe.

NATO is by far the biggest aggressor in the world.

 

[Dschrute3]

US Taxpayers rebuilt Europe after the War. Europeans owe everything to them. The wonderful prosperity they're experiencing today, wouldn't have been possible without US Taxpayers.

But, it seems most Europeans have forgotten history. They've been very stingy when it comes to NATO. We rebuilt Europe, that mission has been accomplished. So now it's time to disband NATO and move on. US Taxpayers deserve a break.

 

[Dschrute3]

NATO is obsolete. The world has changed dramatically since its creation. The EU is made up of very wealthy powerful nations. Europe is more than capable of defending itself at this point. I stopped supporting NATO the day it transitioned from a defensive entity into an offensive entity.

NATO is now an aggressor. It's all over the world bombing and starting wars. It's bombing nations that are absolutely no threat to Europe and the US. So it's no longer serving the purpose it was created for. Europe can defend itself at this point. Time to disband NATO.

You really are a fool. Russia is the aggressor all over the world. They are in Ukraine as well as the Middle East. The fact is that threats that involve NATO can come from other places other than Europe.

NATO is by far the biggest aggressor in the world.

No one invades and kills more people than NATO Nations do. That's just fact.

 

[bendog]

Ever heard of Iraq.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

yeah the same country that invaded Kuwait ...an ally of the US !

So, we invaded Iraq because they invaded Kuwait 10 year prior and got their ass kicked when they did so...yep sounds like war mongering to me

We had an agreement with Iraq to disarm, that ended the war in 1991.

Iraq failed to uphold their end of the agreement. Additionally, based on the intelligence data we had available at the time, we had reason to believe that Saddam was continuing their WMDs program. This conclusion was validated from several sources including European sources.

The fact we did not find massive operational WMD programs in Iraq, does not change the fact that prior to, all the evidence we had at the time suggested they did.

Regardless of what you can say with 20/20 hind sight, doesn't change the fact that a president must go based on the evidence he has, not the evidence he might theoretically have in the future.

This is also why Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and a host of democrats throughout government, all support taking action in Iraq, and only started the "bush lied and people died" routine, when they found it was politically favorable to do so.

Just like all the anti-torture people in Congress, were fully aware and supportive of "enhanced interrogation" prior to it becoming a political win.

Please. No one paying attention thought Saddam had operational womd programs when W invaded. It was NOT over womd. It was about nation building and installing a democracy. And neither turned out to be the total loss critics like me expected.

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.



“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
Dec, 5, 2001.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction. “[W]ithout 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 has 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.

Which of these quotes leading up to the war, by Democrats, do you think are fabricated, and provide proof.

And guess what, we were successful in stopping Saddams' womd programs before W invaded. Shocked I tell ya, we were shocked.

But again, you do the relative success of the Iraq nationbuilding mission a disserverice. They do have a nominal functioning democracy. The Sunni by an large were disposed in the civil war our invasion caused, or at least set in motion, and the destruction of ISIS pretty much finished the job. But Iraq has a pretty democratic govt.

And that may be bring more pressure in Iran to become more democratic

 

[Andylusion]

NATO is obsolete. The world has changed dramatically since its creation. The EU is made up of very wealthy powerful nations. Europe is more than capable of defending itself at this point. I stopped supporting NATO the day it transitioned from a defensive entity into an offensive entity.

NATO is now an aggressor. It's all over the world bombing and starting wars. It's bombing nations that are absolutely no threat to Europe and the US. So it's no longer serving the purpose it was created for. Europe can defend itself at this point. Time to disband NATO.

You really are a fool. Russia is the aggressor all over the world. They are in Ukraine as well as the Middle East. The fact is that threats that involve NATO can come from other places other than Europe.

NATO is by far the biggest aggressor in the world.

No one invades and kills more people than NATO Nations do. That's just fact.

Really? Prove that?

 

[NightFox]

US Taxpayers rebuilt Europe after the War. Europeans owe everything to them. The wonderful prosperity they're experiencing today, wouldn't have been possible without US Taxpayers.

But, it seems most Europeans have forgotten history. They've been very stingy when it comes to NATO. We rebuilt Europe, that mission has been accomplished. So now it's time to disband NATO and move on. US Taxpayers deserve a break.

Why did we have to "rebuild Europe"?

 

[Dschrute3]

US Taxpayers rebuilt Europe after the War. Europeans owe everything to them. The wonderful prosperity they're experiencing today, wouldn't have been possible without US Taxpayers.

But, it seems most Europeans have forgotten history. They've been very stingy when it comes to NATO. We rebuilt Europe, that mission has been accomplished. So now it's time to disband NATO and move on. US Taxpayers deserve a break.

Why did we have to "rebuild Europe"?

You obviously don't know history. I'll chalk that up to your awful Government Schooling. US Taxpayers gave Europe everything it has today. Its wonderful prosperity is all due to US Taxpayers. They've done enough over there. Europe can defend itself properly now. Time to give US Taxpayers a much-earned break. End NATO.

 

[bendog]

US Taxpayers rebuilt Europe after the War. Europeans owe everything to them. The wonderful prosperity they're experiencing today, wouldn't have been possible without US Taxpayers.

But, it seems most Europeans have forgotten history. They've been very stingy when it comes to NATO. We rebuilt Europe, that mission has been accomplished. So now it's time to disband NATO and move on. US Taxpayers deserve a break.

Why did we have to "rebuild Europe"?

Because we wanted to see pro-Western democracies emerge rather than totalitarian regimes, such as those favored by Stalin.

The Marshall Plan and the Revitalization of Post War Europe

 

[NightFox]

US Taxpayers rebuilt Europe after the War. Europeans owe everything to them. The wonderful prosperity they're experiencing today, wouldn't have been possible without US Taxpayers.

But, it seems most Europeans have forgotten history. They've been very stingy when it comes to NATO. We rebuilt Europe, that mission has been accomplished. So now it's time to disband NATO and move on. US Taxpayers deserve a break.

Why did we have to "rebuild Europe"?

You obviously don't know history. I'll chalk that up to your awful Government Schooling. US Taxpayers gave Europe everything it has today. Its wonderful prosperity is all due to US Taxpayers. They've done enough over there. Europe can defend itself properly now. Time to give US Taxpayers a much-earned break. End NATO.

You're the one that obviously doesn't know history, do you know what happened the last time the United States withdrew from European military affairs?

It was a little tiff commonly known as World War II, perhaps you've heard of it? As much as I'd like for the United States to leave the Europeans to their own devices with respect to managing their own national defense, they've proven that they can't be trusted to do so.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana

 

[NightFox]

US Taxpayers rebuilt Europe after the War. Europeans owe everything to them. The wonderful prosperity they're experiencing today, wouldn't have been possible without US Taxpayers.

But, it seems most Europeans have forgotten history. They've been very stingy when it comes to NATO. We rebuilt Europe, that mission has been accomplished. So now it's time to disband NATO and move on. US Taxpayers deserve a break.

Why did we have to "rebuild Europe"?

Because we wanted to see pro-Western democracies emerge rather than totalitarian regimes, such as those favored by Stalin.

Why did it require rebuilding?

 

[Dschrute3]

US Taxpayers rebuilt Europe after the War. Europeans owe everything to them. The wonderful prosperity they're experiencing today, wouldn't have been possible without US Taxpayers.

But, it seems most Europeans have forgotten history. They've been very stingy when it comes to NATO. We rebuilt Europe, that mission has been accomplished. So now it's time to disband NATO and move on. US Taxpayers deserve a break.

Why did we have to "rebuild Europe"?

You obviously don't know history. I'll chalk that up to your awful Government Schooling. US Taxpayers gave Europe everything it has today. Its wonderful prosperity is all due to US Taxpayers. They've done enough over there. Europe can defend itself properly now. Time to give US Taxpayers a much-earned break. End NATO.

You're the one that obviously doesn't know history, do you know what happened the last time the United States withdrew from European military affairs?

It was a little tiff commonly known as World War II, perhaps you've heard of it? As much as I'd like for the United States to leave the Europeans to their own devices with respect to managing their own national defense, they've proven that they can't be trusted to do so.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana

Europe now consists of very wealthy Nuclear Power Nations. And that's all due to US Taxpayers' rebuilding of Europe after the War. They can defend themselves just fine over there. Time to end NATO and move on. Give US Taxpayers the break they deserve.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Ever heard of Iraq.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

yeah the same country that invaded Kuwait ...an ally of the US !

So, we invaded Iraq because they invaded Kuwait 10 year prior and got their ass kicked when they did so...yep sounds like war mongering to me

We had an agreement with Iraq to disarm, that ended the war in 1991.

Iraq failed to uphold their end of the agreement. Additionally, based on the intelligence data we had available at the time, we had reason to believe that Saddam was continuing their WMDs program. This conclusion was validated from several sources including European sources.

The fact we did not find massive operational WMD programs in Iraq, does not change the fact that prior to, all the evidence we had at the time suggested they did.

Regardless of what you can say with 20/20 hind sight, doesn't change the fact that a president must go based on the evidence he has, not the evidence he might theoretically have in the future.

This is also why Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and a host of democrats throughout government, all support taking action in Iraq, and only started the "bush lied and people died" routine, when they found it was politically favorable to do so.

Just like all the anti-torture people in Congress, were fully aware and supportive of "enhanced interrogation" prior to it becoming a political win.

Please. No one paying attention thought Saddam had operational womd programs when W invaded. It was NOT over womd. It was about nation building and installing a democracy. And neither turned out to be the total loss critics like me expected.

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.



“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
Dec, 5, 2001.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction. “[W]ithout 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 has 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.

Which of these quotes leading up to the war, by Democrats, do you think are fabricated, and provide proof.

They are all bullshit. There was no deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands was a real and grave threat to our security. There was no threat to our security .