Romney Predicted The Failures of Today

[NYcarbineer]

In 2008 the American people had the chance to elect a president who was ready to keep troops in Iraq for a hundred years.

They declined.

Yeah. Instead, they went for the guy that promised to change the way we do things in Washington....

How did that pan out?

Given that there aren't several thousand American troops caught up in another Iraqi civil war,

I'd say it worked out really well.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wrong. Obama ended nothing. Bush ended it when he was forced to sign sofa via the Iraqi government.

Iraqi wanted us gone. Period.

Wrong.


The problem was totally due to the ineptitude of Obama, and folks like you who put him in office.


"In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012,...."
Iraq?s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com



Do you understand that?

Bush left Obama with three years.....three years....to work out an agreement.

The dunce could not.

Read the rest of it. Malawki [sp] forced bush to sign it. 3 years 10 years, it didn't matter who was in office after bush. Iraq wanted us out period.

Romney would have pulled us out. McCain. Would have pulled us out...hell bush in a third term would have pulled us out.

It is what it is....

Let's go over that.....so, you have retreated from your original position.....good move.

Now, we have Bush actually achieving an agreement.





" it didn't matter who was in office after bush Iraq wanted us out period.

Romney would have pulled us out. McCain. Would have pulled us out...hell bush in a third term would have pulled us out."



And your new position is that you are convinced of your powers of clairvoyance.





Let's examine that.

I have no doubt that your explanation for the atrocious 'recovery' presided over by the failure in office would have been the same " it didn't matter who was in office"....except for the remarkable, astounding job that Ronald Reagan did, and we can compare the two.


1. "We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom-the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth-assets minus liabilities-of all U.S. households and business ... was $25 trillion in today's dollars. By 2007, ... net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years."
http://theccpp.org/2011/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures-1.html

2. “Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high-tech-oriented economy. Even in recent years the much-maligned U.S. did well. Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy.”
How Capitalism Will Save Us - Forbes



Liberals are like children.....naughty, lying children.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And for the record, we told you loons that saddam was a creep but he was our keep and kept the fundies at bay.

he also stood between us and iran.

but why would neocon idiots understand that?

"And for the record, we told you loons that saddam was a creep but he was our keep and kept the fundies at bay."

Who is "we"?

You have a tapeworm?



I sure hope you don't mean the Democrats as "we"....




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

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

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

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

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

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

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

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

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

"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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

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

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

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

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

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003




Sure looks like you put your foot in your mouth, huh?

I don't see Barack Obama on that list, which is why he's now president, not any of them.

The incredibly wrong point of the previous poster was that "we," some group of imaginary Liberals, Democrat, Progressives, communists, whatever....knew better and opposed the actions.

Clearly, I disabused said poster of the inaccuracy.

Clearly, you are running away from the discussion because, once again....I am 100% correct.


You are, after all, who your are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So how long did the insurgency's last in Germany after WWII? How many Americans were blown up by IED's. Where was the Soviet Unions troops at this time? You get an A+ in false comparisons.

When the occupation failed to keep order in Iraq it was predicted that a three way civil war would be the end result.

Neither Bush nor Obama could get the Iraqis to agree to give our troop immunity to Iraq laws. Neither one would have left our troops there under those terms. Nor would Romney had we been unfortunate enough to have elected him.

Palin? Hahahahaha

"So how long did the insurgency's last in Germany after WWII? How many Americans were blown up by IED's. Where was the Soviet Unions troops at this time? You get an A+ in false comparisons."

Once again....my function is to be teacher to the Leftists....




"The Werewolves were originally organised by the SS and the Hitler Youth as a diversionary operation on the fringes of the Third Reich, which were occupied by the Western Allies and the Soviets in the autumn of 1944. Some 5,000 -- 6,000 recruits were raised by the winter of 1944-45, but numbers rose considerably in the following spring when the Nazi Party and the Propaganda Ministry launched a popular call to arms, beseeching everybody in the occupied areas -- even women and children -- to launch themselves upon the enemy. In typical Nazi fashion, this expansion was not co-ordinated by the relevant bodies, which were instead involved in a bureaucratic war among themselves over control of the project. The result was that the movement functioned on two largely unrelated levels: the first as a real force of specially trained SS, Hitler Youth and Nazi Party guerrillas; the second as an outlet for casual violence by fanatics.

The Werewolves specialised in ambushes and sniping, and took the lives of many Allied and Soviet soldiers and officers --.... "
Minutemen of the Third Reich ("Werewolf" guerilla movement - postwar sabotage & terror not new)



Imagine....if you actually had an education, you wouldn't be a Leftist.




"You get an A+ in false comparisons."

I'm never wrong. I once thought I was wrong, turns out, I was mistaken.

This is 2014, not 1946.

And, there is the same attempt by a lying sack of sewage.

The line to which I responded:
"So how long did the insurgency's last in Germany after WWII?"





I love how the truth in my posts affects you the way a paddle affects a ping-bong ball!

 

[candycorn]

The costs of Iraq:

The Iraq War: How We Spent $800 Billion (and Counting) | Iraq / War on Terror | FRONTLINE | PBS

Anyone want to spend more money over there?

 

[PoliticalChic]

In 2008 the American people had the chance to elect a president who was ready to keep troops in Iraq for a hundred years.

They declined.

In a discussion of what the correct course of action should have been, your post, like you, is meaningless.


Things have played out to reveal the errors of the past, both the election, and Obama's constant stumbles have proven what we on the Right predicted: the presidency is no place for on-the-job training.


Especially when the trainee is incapable of learning.

Very much like you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When you say "predicted" that means it actually has to happen -- you can't just make believe it happened and then say "see, I was right."

Hilary Clinton was one of the most successful Sec of State in our history. She is the most popular woman in the U.S. if not the world.

Tell us of her accomplishments as Sec of State. She had trouble listing them herself.

Hillary “Benghazi” Clinton, the 2016 Democrat presidential hopeful is asked by ABC’s Diane Sawyer to identify her major accomplishment, or “marquee achievement,” as Secretary of State.

“People say, ‘Where is the marquee achievement?’ No sweeping agreements, no signature doctrine,’” Sawyer asked.

Hillary, obviously deflecting in pure Clinton form, attempts to swing the conversation towards the accomplishments of presidents, which was not anywhere near the question.

How many secretaries of state can you name with marquee achievements?

Every single one who is currently angling for the presidency.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are there troops in Germany? South Korea?

.

Wrong question. ONe better question is, will South Korea be sending their massive horde of 3,600 troops back to Iraq?

Remind us when S. Korea bailed out of Iraq.

Let me help our Korean immigrant poster PoliticalChic. South Korea pulled out its sadly comical handful of troops in 2008,

and no, they won't be coming back. I suppose they figure that feeble gesture was a fair trade for the 60+ years of blood and treasure we've spent defending them.

It's time to wake up.

You changed the subject.....

...so, that means I win, right?

 

[candycorn]

And for the record, we told you loons that saddam was a creep but he was our keep and kept the fundies at bay.

he also stood between us and iran.

but why would neocon idiots understand that?

"And for the record, we told you loons that saddam was a creep but he was our keep and kept the fundies at bay."

Who is "we"?

You have a tapeworm?



I sure hope you don't mean the Democrats as "we"....




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

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

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

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

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

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

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

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

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

"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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

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

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

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

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

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003




Sure looks like you put your foot in your mouth, huh?

I don't see Barack Obama on that list, which is why he's now president, not any of them.

What you also don't see is that Bush's CIA was routinely sexing up the intelligence. This is a well known fact that their source was someone they never personally interviewed.



Of course political hick will deny this ever took place but what do you expect, her entire life is a lie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

does the fact that they wouldn't enter into an agreement with us to keep troops there get into your thick skull at all?

Time magazine disagrees with you.....see post #60.

You need to red the rest of time

Yet you neither denied the truth of my post, nor provided support for your insupportable statement.

Guess what that means.




BTW...not being a Liberal, I didn't leap in with "LIAR, LIAR!!!"

 

[Bush92]

Wonder if he can predict when Jesus is coming to central Missouri? Sorry, I don't believe in a sequel to the New Testament. Romney, however, has been right about the failures of Barry's 2nd term.

 

[Nutz]

This is the second most astounding thing in the universe!


Romney...2007....predicts exactly what is happening in the Middle East and Africa today.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_t-YCnZKg8

This man could have been your President.



The first most astounding thing?

Supposedly sentient Americans actually re-elected the failure...and they are responsible for the chaos in the word today.

That's why he wears the Magic Underwear! Who would of known...Mormon Magic Underwear gives prophetic visions. Praise Bringham Young!

 

[PoliticalChic]

In 2008 the American people had the chance to elect a president who was ready to keep troops in Iraq for a hundred years.

They declined.

Yeah. Instead, they went for the guy that promised to change the way we do things in Washington....

How did that pan out?

Given that there aren't several thousand American troops caught up in another Iraqi civil war,

I'd say it worked out really well.

Interesting, the multitude of ways you have of pretense.

Would the insurgent army have been there is an American force had remained?

 

[Siete]

Wrong question. ONe better question is, will South Korea be sending their massive horde of 3,600 troops back to Iraq?

Remind us when S. Korea bailed out of Iraq.

Let me help our Korean immigrant poster PoliticalChic. South Korea pulled out its sadly comical handful of troops in 2008,

and no, they won't be coming back. I suppose they figure that feeble gesture was a fair trade for the 60+ years of blood and treasure we've spent defending them.

It's time to wake up.

You changed the subject.....

...so, that means I win, right?

sure, anything you say.


now go pat yourself on the back, the adults are through presenting you with facts you refuse to accept. In your world, you win.

 

[BlindBoo]

Are there troops in Germany? South Korea?

The reason is that we were once led by leaders who understood what would happen if we left with the possibility that all the gains could be lost.


Along came a community organizer, given power by the slow-witted, like you, who didn't have the requisite ability to get a status of forces agreement with Iraq.

And Romney told all exactly would happen.

And Palin did the same vis-a-vis Putin.

Only Obama, the Oblivious, didn't.



Now, if you require a theory that endows Obama with more ability.....then the chaos in the Middle East must be his plan.
And he has misled you on his plan for the world.....


...note: neither theory endows Obama voters with insight or intelligence.

So how long did the insurgency's last in Germany after WWII? How many Americans were blown up by IED's. Where was the Soviet Unions troops at this time? You get an A+ in false comparisons.

When the occupation failed to keep order in Iraq it was predicted that a three way civil war would be the end result.

Neither Bush nor Obama could get the Iraqis to agree to give our troop immunity to Iraq laws. Neither one would have left our troops there under those terms. Nor would Romney had we been unfortunate enough to have elected him.
Palin? Hahahahaha

I am glad to hear you are happy with the way things are going with the one we were "fortunate enough" to have elected.

Pathetic.

Which voice inside your head told you that? The Iraqi were not going to allow our soldiers immunity from Iraqi law regardless of who was president. Not even Mittens would have left our troop there under those conditions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let me help our Korean immigrant poster PoliticalChic. South Korea pulled out its sadly comical handful of troops in 2008,

and no, they won't be coming back. I suppose they figure that feeble gesture was a fair trade for the 60+ years of blood and treasure we've spent defending them.

It's time to wake up.

You changed the subject.....

...so, that means I win, right?

sure, anything you say.


now go pat yourself on the back, the adults are through presenting you with facts you refuse to accept. In your world, you win.

"...presenting you with facts you refuse to accept."

Name one.


It is said that a good liar includes as much of the truth as he can; you're not even a good liar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So how long did the insurgency's last in Germany after WWII? How many Americans were blown up by IED's. Where was the Soviet Unions troops at this time? You get an A+ in false comparisons.

When the occupation failed to keep order in Iraq it was predicted that a three way civil war would be the end result.

Neither Bush nor Obama could get the Iraqis to agree to give our troop immunity to Iraq laws. Neither one would have left our troops there under those terms. Nor would Romney had we been unfortunate enough to have elected him.
Palin? Hahahahaha

I am glad to hear you are happy with the way things are going with the one we were "fortunate enough" to have elected.

Pathetic.

Which voice inside your head told you that? The Iraqi were not going to allow our soldiers immunity from Iraqi law regardless of who was president. Not even Mittens would have left our troop there under those conditions.

"The Iraqi were not going to allow our soldiers immunity from Iraqi law regardless of who was president. Not even Mittens would have left our troop there under those conditions."


You know no such thing.

Simply a pretense on your part designed to shield the failure in the White House.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is the second most astounding thing in the universe!


Romney...2007....predicts exactly what is happening in the Middle East and Africa today.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_t-YCnZKg8

This man could have been your President.



The first most astounding thing?

Supposedly sentient Americans actually re-elected the failure...and they are responsible for the chaos in the word today.

That's why he wears the Magic Underwear! Who would of known...Mormon Magic Underwear gives prophetic visions. Praise Bringham Young!

Is this something they teach Liberals in government schools?

The same pattern over and over.....losing the argument, change the subject.


If you're the best there is, the wheel would never have been invented.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"And for the record, we told you loons that saddam was a creep but he was our keep and kept the fundies at bay."

Who is "we"?

You have a tapeworm?



I sure hope you don't mean the Democrats as "we"....


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

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

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

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

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

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

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

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

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

"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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

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

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

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

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

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003




Sure looks like you put your foot in your mouth, huh?

I don't see Barack Obama on that list, which is why he's now president, not any of them.

What you also don't see is that Bush's CIA was routinely sexing up the intelligence. This is a well known fact that their source was someone they never personally interviewed.



Of course political hick will deny this ever took place but what do you expect, her entire life is a lie.

This is your proof????


I provide links showing the words of every elite Democrat official.....and you provide "curveball"??????



Save the barrel…and you can go back to being a rodeo clown.

 

[Nutz]

This is the second most astounding thing in the universe!


Romney...2007....predicts exactly what is happening in the Middle East and Africa today.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_t-YCnZKg8

This man could have been your President.



The first most astounding thing?

Supposedly sentient Americans actually re-elected the failure...and they are responsible for the chaos in the word today.

That's why he wears the Magic Underwear! Who would of known...Mormon Magic Underwear gives prophetic visions. Praise Bringham Young!

Is this something they teach Liberals in government schools?

The same pattern over and over.....losing the argument, change the subject.


If you're the best there is, the wheel would never have been invented.

I am no liberal...I just think Romney is a moron and he should never have gotten the nomination.

AND, your assessment of the situation is wrong. You are just being negative because of Obama. I see the violence in Iraq as a good thing and give Bush the credit for being an absolute GENIUS. He destabilized the Muslim Middle East. They are killing each other and there will be a Sunni - Shiite war that goes well beyond the Iraqi border. Those savages will now focus on killing each other for decades...sucking up every resource the terrorists have to attack the west. He started a regional war...America is now safer, Israel is now safer.

Bush will go down as one of the GREATEST Presidents ever.

Romney will go down as the liberal who acted conservative (or vice versa) and lost a gimme election! Romeny will go down as the magic underwear wearing buffoon who couldn't beat a failure.

Praise Joseph Smith!