Would ANY Bush Basher care to refute these statements???

[healthmyths]

And one of the Democrat's first priorities was to find a way to pin their actions on W. You're still doing it.

W pulled the trigger

So if W is a liar, and Democrats said the same thing, it doesn't matter, they are both liars.

W pulled the trigger 3 months after he was given authorization to go to war if HE felt it necessary

The UN begged for more time.......Bush told them to fuck themselves

The UN was right

The UN "begged" for more time? You are FOS

UN weapons inspector Hans Blix informed Bush that he was finding no WMDs and that if given more time, he could prove it

Bush invaded before his excuse was gone

But Saddam would let 100,000 children die by NOT certifying the WMDs were gone?
Who would you believe. Hans Blix who had NOTHING to gain either way or Saddam who had 100,000 kids starving each year that didn't need to
except for certifying there were no WMDs!
It just wouldn't make sense that to believe the guy who was LOOKING for WMDs or the guy who wouldn't certify the WMDs were destroyed!
For me the guy that wouldn't SIGN was more believable then the guy who was LOOKING because logic would say if the guy who had destroyed the
WMDs would certify thus saving 100,000 kids from starving.
YOU tell me who would YOU believe???

 

[kaz]

And one of the Democrat's first priorities was to find a way to pin their actions on W. You're still doing it.

W pulled the trigger

So if W is a liar, and Democrats said the same thing, it doesn't matter, they are both liars.

W pulled the trigger 3 months after he was given authorization to go to war if HE felt it necessary

The UN begged for more time.......Bush told them to fuck themselves

The UN was right

The UN "begged" for more time? You are FOS

UN weapons inspector Hans Blix informed Bush that he was finding no WMDs and that if given more time, he could prove it

Bush invaded before his excuse was gone

I didn't say the UN didn't ask for more time, but you constantly have to slant things with biased descriptions. Facts are a lot more compelling than your emotions.

The whole thing was stupid anyway, stockpiles are irrelevant. We know Saddam had the technology because he used them. Again, you are going at Republicans with the same solution, you're just pointing fingers and fighting over the steering wheel.

We need a different way, a different solution. But as long as you can't man up to your actions and question what lawyers tell you to think, you will be in the end no different than your devil, the Republicans.

 

[kaz]

Bush invaded before his excuse was gone

But Saddam would let 100,000 children die by NOT certifying the WMDs were gone?
Who would you believe. Hans Blix who had NOTHING to gain either way or Saddam who had 100,000 kids starving each year that didn't need to
except for certifying there were no WMDs!
It just wouldn't make sense that to believe the guy who was LOOKING for WMDs or the guy who wouldn't certify the WMDs were destroyed!
For me the guy that wouldn't SIGN was more believable then the guy who was LOOKING because logic would say if the guy who had destroyed the
WMDs would certify thus saving 100,000 kids from starving.
YOU tell me who would YOU believe???

You are talking to a wall, rw doesn't care. He wants the party that puts the most dollars in his government check and he'll say whatever they tell him to say to get it.

 

[JimH52]

MUSINGS ON IRAQ 8220 We Will Be Greeted As Liberators 8221 Why The Bush Administration Saw Iraq As A War Of Liberation

Meet The Press in March, just before the invasion. Russert asked the Vice President what would happen if the public did not welcome the Americans, and Iraq turned into a long and bloody occupation. Cheney responded, “I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. … The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want is to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

Polling of Iraqis after the 2003 invasion showed that many did welcome the U.S, but quickly turned against it. In April 2003,nearly 50% of Iraqis saw the Americans as liberators. Half a year later in October, that had dramatically changed as only one in six held that view. In April 2004,a USA Today/CNN/Gallup survey found that 71% of Iraqis saw the U.S. as occupiers, 46% said that they had done more harm than good in Iraq, while only 19% said the U.S. were liberators. In June, only 2% of the public had a favorable opinion of the Coalition. As the polls showed, many people were happy that Saddam was overthrown. The post-war chaos that followed in the wake of the Coalition forces quickly spoiled that mood. It seemed as if Muklis was prophetic when he warned the White House that Iraqis would quickly turn on the Americans if they didn’t see immediate benefits from the invasion.

The American public and even Congress were given terribly mistaken and often fabricated facts about the Iraqi invasion. As I said before, we will be paying for MISSION ACCOMPLISHED for years to come.

So if most Americans and Iraqis are told it is an "Iraqi Invasion" geez you think that is a positive term?
I too would be offended if my country was "invaded"!
BUT WHEN will people like you recognize that when Clinton signed the following legislation it was called "Liberation of Iraq"!
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq, SIGNED by CLINTON, and the Congress passed Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)
"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

So when the MSM/Democrats changed from "Liberation" to "Invasion" AND the majority of idiots seemed to forget that the "1991 Cease Fire" was not a truce.
It was a "CEASE FIRE" which meant if Saddam didn't keep his part of the agreement ... NO MORE CEASE FIRE!

Words have meaning and when people like most of the ignorant biased MSM and Democrats realize they used the term "Invasion" --a NEGATIVE term.
No wonder then Iraqis changed their perceptions when asked do you support the Invasion of Iraq!

Show me the WMD! Naw, I guess you can't.

 

[JimH52]

Have to remember for these far left drones the history of Iraq began in 2003 that led to 9/11..

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, but the recovering alcoholic used the fear from 9/11 to induce votes for the war. The fear he was able to establish along with the multiple fabrications led to the greatest blunder in American history.

Bush had a little help in what you call 'multiple fabrications from Democrats.
"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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

Everyone of these quotes were based on lies and fabrications that the Bush administration had concocted. Everyone knows the data was cherry picked and selected to get a vote.

I remember thinking as Bush's war began, "What if there is no WMD? Why has the administration gone head long into a war that has not been proven necessary yet." WHY DIDN'T THE UN INSPECTORS ON THE GROUND FIND ANY OF BUSH'S WMD?

Then I remember a couple Bush supporters in my office asserting that maybe some WMD should be planted if none is found. I am shocked they didn't try.

 

[rightwinger]

W pulled the trigger

So if W is a liar, and Democrats said the same thing, it doesn't matter, they are both liars.

W pulled the trigger 3 months after he was given authorization to go to war if HE felt it necessary

The UN begged for more time.......Bush told them to fuck themselves

The UN was right

The UN "begged" for more time? You are FOS

UN weapons inspector Hans Blix informed Bush that he was finding no WMDs and that if given more time, he could prove it

Bush invaded before his excuse was gone

But Saddam would let 100,000 children die by NOT certifying the WMDs were gone?
Who would you believe. Hans Blix who had NOTHING to gain either way or Saddam who had 100,000 kids starving each year that didn't need to
except for certifying there were no WMDs!
It just wouldn't make sense that to believe the guy who was LOOKING for WMDs or the guy who wouldn't certify the WMDs were destroyed!
For me the guy that wouldn't SIGN was more believable then the guy who was LOOKING because logic would say if the guy who had destroyed the
WMDs would certify thus saving 100,000 kids from starving.
YOU tell me who would YOU believe???

One of the most ridiculous points I have ever heard

So you blame the US for starving 100,000 kids?

 

[Camp]

After 9-11, one of Bush's first priorities was to find a way to pin it on Saddam Hussein

I still can't get an answer to a basic question. What did Bush mean when he said Iraq was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. He said it in his State of the Union Address immediately following 9/11. Why hasn't any evidence ever been presented that this was a true statement? Why is it wrong to call his statement a lie?

Um, the State of the Union is delivered in January, not right after 9/11.

I searched the text of the 2002 State of the Union speech.

He used the word al Qaeda once, and it was in regard to the shoe bomber, not Iraq.

He used the word Iraq two times, in consecutive sentences. It was about Iraq and their general support of terrorism and WMDs.

So, what are you talking about?

You are correct. The lie was made in the 2003 address

www.thisnation.com/library/sotu/2003gwb.html

Paragraph 14 up from bottom of page.

youtube.com/watch?v=jTpZYH2x9-k

So a year and a half was "immediately following 9/11?"

Here's what he said, "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."

He didn't say anything about Saddam being involved in 9/11. He didn't even say Iraq helped al Qaeda. He said Iraq met with Al Qaeda and they "could" provide weapons to terrorists. What about that is remotely a "lie?"

I admitted I had my State of the Union Address's mixed up, but the fact remains, Bush said Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. Giving aid and protection means some level of collusion. Absolutely no evidence of collusion, aiding or protecting has ever been provided.

 

[TooTall]

Have to remember for these far left drones the history of Iraq began in 2003 that led to 9/11..

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, but the recovering alcoholic used the fear from 9/11 to induce votes for the war. The fear he was able to establish along with the multiple fabrications led to the greatest blunder in American history.

Bush had a little help in what you call 'multiple fabrications from Democrats.
"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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

Everyone of these quotes were based on lies and fabrications that the Bush administration had concocted. Everyone knows the data was cherry picked and selected to get a vote.

I remember thinking as Bush's war began, "What if there is no WMD? Why has the administration gone head long into a war that has not been proven necessary yet." WHY DIDN'T THE UN INSPECTORS ON THE GROUND FIND ANY OF BUSH'S WMD?

Then I remember a couple Bush supporters in my office asserting that maybe some WMD should be planted if none is found. I am shocked they didn't try.

Every one of those quotes was based on briefings these Democrats got from the US intel agencies. The UN inspectors found and destroy TONS of WMD's dumbass.

 

[jknowgood]

I don't get the point of this. You thought on 9/11 he suddenly decided Hussein was a threat? He thought that before 9/11, and that tells us what exactly? BTW, the Clinton Iraq policy was "regime change." Maybe it wasn't just W...

This is still you petty Partisans driving down the same road and fighting over who gets to sit behind the steering wheel. We need a better middle east policy, not an aha, I got you opportunity.

After 9-11, one of Bush's first priorities was to find a way to pin it on Saddam Hussein

And one of the Democrat's first priorities was to find a way to pin their actions on W. You're still doing it.

W pulled the trigger

So if W is a liar, and Democrats said the same thing, it doesn't matter, they are both liars.

W pulled the trigger 3 months after he was given authorization to go to war if HE felt it necessary

The UN begged for more time.......Bush told them to fuck themselves

The UN was right

Link?

 

[jknowgood]

And one of the Democrat's first priorities was to find a way to pin their actions on W. You're still doing it.

W pulled the trigger

So if W is a liar, and Democrats said the same thing, it doesn't matter, they are both liars.

W pulled the trigger 3 months after he was given authorization to go to war if HE felt it necessary

The UN begged for more time.......Bush told them to fuck themselves

The UN was right

The UN "begged" for more time? You are FOS

UN weapons inspector Hans Blix informed Bush that he was finding no WMDs and that if given more time, he could prove it

Bush invaded before his excuse was gone

Bush gave Saddam plenty of time, you're an idiot.

 

[JimH52]

After 9-11, one of Bush's first priorities was to find a way to pin it on Saddam Hussein

And one of the Democrat's first priorities was to find a way to pin their actions on W. You're still doing it.

W pulled the trigger

So if W is a liar, and Democrats said the same thing, it doesn't matter, they are both liars.

W pulled the trigger 3 months after he was given authorization to go to war if HE felt it necessary

The UN begged for more time.......Bush told them to fuck themselves

The UN was right

Link?

U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush Administration for lack of critical thinking in Iraq

"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We went to sites [in Iraq] given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find something" - a stash of nuclear documents, some Vulcan boosters, and several empty warheads for chemical weapons. More inspections were required to determine whether these findings were the "tip of the iceberg" or simply fragments remaining from that deadly iceberg's past destruction, Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year.

What Blix's inspectors had needed was more time, he emphasized. The Bush administration should have halted its military buildup in the area at 50,000 troops, the point at which the Iraqis had become much more cooperative, providing the lists of scientists and bureaucrats to Blix's team. "Given time, we would have been able to interview the many people who destroyed weapons of mass destruction after 1991," he told Amanpour.

You have a very short memory...huh?

 

[JimH52]

Bush, being a recovering alcoholic and having a Vice-President who had dollar signs in his eyes, had decided long before the inspections ever started that he was going to invade Iraq. And he would be a hero for his MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

 

[jknowgood]

Bush, being a recovering alcoholic and having a Vice-President who had dollar signs in his eyes, had decided long before the inspections ever started that he was going to invade Iraq. And he would be a hero for his MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Are you making an excuse for a coke head saying he decimated Al-Qaida before the 2012 elections? Even though they were behind bengazi?

 

[healthmyths]

So if W is a liar, and Democrats said the same thing, it doesn't matter, they are both liars.

W pulled the trigger 3 months after he was given authorization to go to war if HE felt it necessary

The UN begged for more time.......Bush told them to fuck themselves

The UN was right

The UN "begged" for more time? You are FOS

UN weapons inspector Hans Blix informed Bush that he was finding no WMDs and that if given more time, he could prove it

Bush invaded before his excuse was gone

But Saddam would let 100,000 children die by NOT certifying the WMDs were gone?
Who would you believe. Hans Blix who had NOTHING to gain either way or Saddam who had 100,000 kids starving each year that didn't need to
except for certifying there were no WMDs!
It just wouldn't make sense that to believe the guy who was LOOKING for WMDs or the guy who wouldn't certify the WMDs were destroyed!
For me the guy that wouldn't SIGN was more believable then the guy who was LOOKING because logic would say if the guy who had destroyed the
WMDs would certify thus saving 100,000 kids from starving.
YOU tell me who would YOU believe???

One of the most ridiculous points I have ever heard

So you blame the US for starving 100,000 kids?

YOU really don't understand!
MY point entirely was Saddam by NOT certifying his WMDs were destroyed, LET 100,000 kids starve because of sanctions!
Any sane normal person knowing that 100,000 kids would starve AND that there were NO WMDs would have CERTIFIED they were destroyed thus lifting the sanctions!
BUT Saddam was crazy! He didn't care if 100,000 kids starved. So any normal sane person would conclude HE HAD WMDs! Why else would if HE KNEW
he didn't have them would he NOT sign the certification and the sanctions would be lifted!
Do you understand? Blitz etc, were trying to find WMDs said there were none.
YET if there were none why then didn't Saddam Certify and keep then 100,000 kids a year from starving from the embargo?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW???
Every sane compassionate person would NOT believe a leader would let children starve IF THERE WERE NO WMDs!
Saddam didn't care.
NOW do you understand why the USA et.al. believed his behavior i.e. NOT certifying WMDs were destroyed made them USA,et.al. believe there were WMDs.

 

[healthmyths]

Have to remember for these far left drones the history of Iraq began in 2003 that led to 9/11..

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, but the recovering alcoholic used the fear from 9/11 to induce votes for the war. The fear he was able to establish along with the multiple fabrications led to the greatest blunder in American history.

Bush had a little help in what you call 'multiple fabrications from Democrats.
"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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

Everyone of these quotes were based on lies and fabrications that the Bush administration had concocted. Everyone knows the data was cherry picked and selected to get a vote.

I remember thinking as Bush's war began, "What if there is no WMD? Why has the administration gone head long into a war that has not been proven necessary yet." WHY DIDN'T THE UN INSPECTORS ON THE GROUND FIND ANY OF BUSH'S WMD?

Then I remember a couple Bush supporters in my office asserting that maybe some WMD should be planted if none is found. I am shocked they didn't try.

DONE BEFORE BUSH!!!

"..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

 

[TooTall]

Bush, being a recovering alcoholic and having a Vice-President who had dollar signs in his eyes, had decided long before the inspections ever started that he was going to invade Iraq. And he would be a hero for his MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

George Bush was never an alcoholic and the only interest Dick Cheney had in Haliburton he donated to charity. You are an idiot.

 

[JimH52]

Bush, being a recovering alcoholic and having a Vice-President who had dollar signs in his eyes, had decided long before the inspections ever started that he was going to invade Iraq. And he would be a hero for his MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Are you making an excuse for a coke head saying he decimated Al-Qaida before the 2012 elections? Even though they were behind bengazi?

Has anyone called the recovering alcoholic to tell him Bin Laden is dead yet? He might still be looking on his ranch for him.....

 

[JimH52]

Bush, being a recovering alcoholic and having a Vice-President who had dollar signs in his eyes, had decided long before the inspections ever started that he was going to invade Iraq. And he would be a hero for his MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

George Bush was never an alcoholic and the only interest Dick Cheney had in Haliburton he donated to charity. You are an idiot.

Bush s obsession with fitness is typical of a recovering alcoholic 8211 Telegraph Blogs

And you elected him twice to the White House.....

 

[rightwinger]

W pulled the trigger

So if W is a liar, and Democrats said the same thing, it doesn't matter, they are both liars.

W pulled the trigger 3 months after he was given authorization to go to war if HE felt it necessary

The UN begged for more time.......Bush told them to fuck themselves

The UN was right

The UN "begged" for more time? You are FOS

UN weapons inspector Hans Blix informed Bush that he was finding no WMDs and that if given more time, he could prove it

Bush invaded before his excuse was gone

Bush gave Saddam plenty of time, you're an idiot.

What would have happened if he gave him two more years? ten more years?

6000 Americans would be alive today

Saddam was no threat

 

[jknowgood]

Bush, being a recovering alcoholic and having a Vice-President who had dollar signs in his eyes, had decided long before the inspections ever started that he was going to invade Iraq. And he would be a hero for his MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Are you making an excuse for a coke head saying he decimated Al-Qaida before the 2012 elections? Even though they were behind bengazi?

Has anyone called the recovering alcoholic to tell him Bin Laden is dead yet? He might still be looking on his ranch for him.....

He knows, it was his intelligence that what was needed to get laden. Thanks president Bush.