Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There was no "...prospective harm to the interests and security of the United States."The insults directed at scumbucket turds like expat and groinboi are neither excessive nor gratuitous.
Heck, they pale in comparison to what those two pieces of shit actually are.
Now, back on point.
CONGRESS authorized the military actions against Saddam's Iraq.
They offered LOTS of reasons.
Not all of them were related to WMDs. Not all were even indirectly related to the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks against America. Some explicitly mentioned the prospective harm to the interests and security of the United States. Some did make reference to prior UN Resolutions. Some invoked PRIOR Congressional Resolutions and concerns. And some involved humanitarian concerns for the numerous victims of Saddam Hussein.
You libs can pretend that it was all about WMD. OR you can pretend that it was somehow about the UN and its own Resolutions. But the litany of "whereas" clauses reveal your lies quite tellingly.
And there is no way you can justify any.
He cited the resolution, but you called it a "reason".I directed you to pay attention. Apparently you simply have no such ability.
Try to follow along. Get an adult to assist you, since that appears to be essential.
I did NOT use the UN resolutions as a "reason," you fucking dishonest bullshit flinging poo monkey moron. I merely REPLIED to blindbooboo who cited the CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION. CONGRESS cited the UN Resolution.
That is what makes all the difference. It was a part of their LITANY of reasons for authorizing the war, you shithead motherfucking dishonest trollish liberal propagandizing hack.
The balance of your post is just so much additional feces. So get back to your anal rasp; and next time you post, try to be at least a little honest for once in your worthless life.
At least be man enough to own up to the words you say!
Too bad those "reasons" didn't matter to Bush, because he invaded against those "reasons".I have said repeatedly that what matters is and was Congress' reasons.
There was no "...prospective harm to the interests and security of the United States."The insults directed at scumbucket turds like expat and groinboi are neither excessive nor gratuitous.
Heck, they pale in comparison to what those two pieces of shit actually are.
Now, back on point.
CONGRESS authorized the military actions against Saddam's Iraq.
They offered LOTS of reasons.
Not all of them were related to WMDs. Not all were even indirectly related to the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks against America. Some explicitly mentioned the prospective harm to the interests and security of the United States. Some did make reference to prior UN Resolutions. Some invoked PRIOR Congressional Resolutions and concerns. And some involved humanitarian concerns for the numerous victims of Saddam Hussein.
You libs can pretend that it was all about WMD. OR you can pretend that it was somehow about the UN and its own Resolutions. But the litany of "whereas" clauses reveal your lies quite tellingly.
And there is no way you can justify any.
You mean -- holy shit -- you disagree with the considered opinion of the very U.S. Congress that authorized the military action?
Wow.
I'm sure they will be all abashed to realize that an internet hack like you disagrees with them.
There was no "...prospective harm to the interests and security of the United States."
And there is no way you can justify any.
You mean -- holy shit -- you disagree with the considered opinion of the very U.S. Congress that authorized the military action?
Wow.
I'm sure they will be all abashed to realize that an internet hack like you disagrees with them.
not all of them... a majority of the democrats in congress at the time agree with him - and me - that the war was dumber than dirt... kinda like you.
again... if we had left Saddam in place he could have continued to do three things that would have helped us immensely:
1. keep sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another in Iraq
2. keep AQ from using Iraq as a staging ground and a recruiting haven
3. keep acting as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony.
He DIDN'T have stockpiles of WMD's, the absolute certainty of which was a LIE on Bush's part, and he didn't have any operational connection with AQ and certainly would NEVER have given them WMD's even if he HAD them.
There was no "...prospective harm to the interests and security of the United States."
And there is no way you can justify any.
You mean -- holy shit -- you disagree with the considered opinion of the very U.S. Congress that authorized the military action?
Wow.
I'm sure they will be all abashed to realize that an internet hack like you disagrees with them.
not all of them... a majority of the democrats in congress at the time agree with him - and me - that the war was dumber than dirt... kinda like you.
again... if we had left Saddam in place he could have continued to do three things that would have helped us immensely:
1. keep sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another in Iraq
2. keep AQ from using Iraq as a staging ground and a recruiting haven
3. keep acting as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony.
He DIDN'T have stockpiles of WMD's, the absolute certainty of which was a LIE on Bush's part, and he didn't have any operational connection with AQ and certainly would NEVER have given them WMD's even if he HAD them.
There was no "...prospective harm to the interests and security of the United States."
And there is no way you can justify any.
You mean -- holy shit -- you disagree with the considered opinion of the very U.S. Congress that authorized the military action?
Wow.
I'm sure they will be all abashed to realize that an internet hack like you disagrees with them.
not all of them... a majority of the democrats in congress at the time agree with him - and me - that the war was dumber than dirt... kinda like you.
again... if we had left Saddam in place he could have continued to do three things that would have helped us immensely:
1. keep sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another in Iraq
2. keep AQ from using Iraq as a staging ground and a recruiting haven
3. keep acting as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony.
He DIDN'T have stockpiles of WMD's, the absolute certainty of which was a LIE on Bush's part, and he didn't have any operational connection with AQ and certainly would NEVER have given them WMD's even if he HAD them.
You mean -- holy shit -- you disagree with the considered opinion of the very U.S. Congress that authorized the military action?
Wow.
I'm sure they will be all abashed to realize that an internet hack like you disagrees with them.
not all of them... a majority of the democrats in congress at the time agree with him - and me - that the war was dumber than dirt... kinda like you.
again... if we had left Saddam in place he could have continued to do three things that would have helped us immensely:
1. keep sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another in Iraq
2. keep AQ from using Iraq as a staging ground and a recruiting haven
3. keep acting as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony.
He DIDN'T have stockpiles of WMD's, the absolute certainty of which was a LIE on Bush's part, and he didn't have any operational connection with AQ and certainly would NEVER have given them WMD's even if he HAD them.
total horseshit. the sunni shiite war has been going on for years, Saddam escalated it.
Saddam said he had WMDs, he used gas on the kurds, that same gas was probably used just recently in Syria.
Saddam needed to go, but we do agree that our invasion was a stupid mistake and a waste of lives and money.
But your claim that Bush lied about it because he loved war and wanted to make obscene profits for defence contractors is just untrue.
Bush's error was in being as gullible as the rest of the world and buying into bad intel.
You mean -- holy shit -- you disagree with the considered opinion of the very U.S. Congress that authorized the military action?
Wow.
I'm sure they will be all abashed to realize that an internet hack like you disagrees with them.
not all of them... a majority of the democrats in congress at the time agree with him - and me - that the war was dumber than dirt... kinda like you.
again... if we had left Saddam in place he could have continued to do three things that would have helped us immensely:
1. keep sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another in Iraq
2. keep AQ from using Iraq as a staging ground and a recruiting haven
3. keep acting as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony.
He DIDN'T have stockpiles of WMD's, the absolute certainty of which was a LIE on Bush's part, and he didn't have any operational connection with AQ and certainly would NEVER have given them WMD's even if he HAD them.
A majority of Democrats in the Senate disagreed with you.
But that's not really germane to the conversation.
The majority of the members of each house concurred in determining that it was warranted to authorize military action against Saddam's Iraq.
And your endless and dishonest willingness to call President Bush a liar does nothing to further your claim. You, not he, remain the liar.
You CAN make an argument (still debatable but more supportable) that he was "wrong." But being wrong is not the same thing as being a liar, you fuckhole.
And you have no way of knowing what Saddam might have done with his WMDs, so YOUR baseless "assurance" that he would"never" give them to al qaeda is just unadulterated bullshit. You spew a lot of bullshit.
By STEPHEN F. KNOTT
March 17, 2013
For years before the war, a bipartisan consensus thought Saddam possessed WMD.
At 5:34 a.m. on March 20, 2003, American, British and other allied forces invaded Iraq. One of the most divisive conflicts in the nation's history would soon be labeled " Bush's War." [excerpted from propaganda treatise]
[additional propaganda snipped to cut to the chase]
By STEPHEN F. KNOTT
March 17, 2013
For years before the war, a bipartisan consensus thought Saddam possessed WMD.
At 5:34 a.m. on March 20, 2003, American, British and other allied forces invaded Iraq. One of the most divisive conflicts in the nation's history would soon be labeled " Bush's War." [excerpted from propaganda treatise]
[additional propaganda snipped to cut to the chase]
There was no time ever that honorable people agreed with the filthy god damned scum determined to invade Iraq. That never, ever happened.
Here are the real world facts on how a mommy's boy coached by a corporate factotum stampeded white trash into supporting invading a shit-for-brains dictatorship that posed less of a threat to the USA than Mexico does:
Next.
By STEPHEN F. KNOTT
March 17, 2013
For years before the war, a bipartisan consensus thought Saddam possessed WMD.
At 5:34 a.m. on March 20, 2003, American, British and other allied forces invaded Iraq. One of the most divisive conflicts in the nation's history would soon be labeled " Bush's War." [excerpted from propaganda treatise]
[additional propaganda snipped to cut to the chase]
There was no time ever that honorable people agreed with the filthy god damned scum determined to invade Iraq. That never, ever happened.
Here are the real world facts on how a mommy's boy coached by a corporate factotum stampeded white trash into supporting invading a shit-for-brains dictatorship that posed less of a threat to the USA than Mexico does:
Next.
[something about the neocon filth Clinton deleted to minimize the impulse to puke]
There was no time ever that honorable people agreed with the filthy god damned scum determined to invade Iraq. That never, ever happened.
Here are the real world facts on how a mommy's boy coached by a corporate factotum stampeded white trash into supporting invading a shit-for-brains dictatorship that posed less of a threat to the USA than Mexico does:
Next.
[something about the neocon filth Clinton deleted to minimize the impulse to puke]
Clinton was a filthy god damned scum and ReagaNUT. It tickles me that haflwit America can't look past a label to see what Clinton actually did:
1. NAFTA
2. Wide open borders for cheap labor (h1b and illegal)
3. Wide open borders for cheap goods made by coerced labor
4. First no bid defense contract for Halliburton (bosnia)
5. First no bid defense contract for Blackwater (bosnia)
6. Forced Brooksley Born out at CFTC setting stage for crash of 2008
7. Preserved heroin route through Kosova
8. Signed repeal of Glass Steagall, part II setting stage for 2008
9. Signed CFTMA thereby guaranteeing a major economic calamity
10. Pardoned Marc Rich
11. Took his payoff as $80kk in speaking and consulting fees; never created a private sector job, never improved a process, never invented anything.
Clinton was a NeoCon playing a Democrat. The man belongs in prison.
Party politics is apparently some kind of mental defect in large numbers of Americans.
[something about the neocon filth Clinton deleted to minimize the impulse to puke]
Clinton was a filthy god damned scum and ReagaNUT. It tickles me that haflwit America can't look past a label to see what Clinton actually did:
1. NAFTA
2. Wide open borders for cheap labor (h1b and illegal)
3. Wide open borders for cheap goods made by coerced labor
4. First no bid defense contract for Halliburton (bosnia)
5. First no bid defense contract for Blackwater (bosnia)
6. Forced Brooksley Born out at CFTC setting stage for crash of 2008
7. Preserved heroin route through Kosova
8. Signed repeal of Glass Steagall, part II setting stage for 2008
9. Signed CFTMA thereby guaranteeing a major economic calamity
10. Pardoned Marc Rich
11. Took his payoff as $80kk in speaking and consulting fees; never created a private sector job, never improved a process, never invented anything.
Clinton was a NeoCon playing a Democrat. The man belongs in prison.
Party politics is apparently some kind of mental defect in large numbers of Americans.
At least Clinton had it right in saying that Saddam was indeed a threat. The world is safer today without Saddam!
If he was a threat, who was he threatening?At least Clinton had it right in saying that Saddam was indeed a threat. The world is safer today without Saddam!
Let me get this straight, we went to war over Clinton saying Iraq was a threat 5 years before, yet blew off Clinton saying al-Qaeda was a threat, just 8 months before 9/11?Well, on the question of whether Saddam was a THREAT or not, here is what Bill Clinton had to say on the matter in December 1998:
