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

[jknowgood]

Bush and Bush alone ordered the invasion. At the time, the UN was asking for more time to prove there were no WMDs
Bush attacked before his phony WMDS story could fall apart

The UN had a conflict of interest to make that call. SEE OIL FOR FOOD. The UN and several stand alone members had incentive to keep him in power. Before Bush came into office, Democrats from 1993-2000 were crying for his removal and many Americans supported that. Bush did not go in on impulse to Iraq. Within weeks, we hit targets in Afghanastan. Bush built the case, garnered support among everyone, including Democrats who had been building the case before him. He even gave Saddam options to step down and go quietly. 9-11 was in September 2001. We hit Iraq in March 2003 with unanimous support among Democrats and Republicans alike. It was only after the invasion that majority of Democrats changed their tune and pretended like they wanted no part of it all along.

Hate to tell ya...

But the UN was proved right, Bush was proved wrong

Cost 6000 Americans their lives

Actually Bush liberated a country. Obama screwed it up.

 

[rightwinger]

Make a wrong financial decision.....Let em die

Why do you lie? Moochers, many of them not even American citizens pile into emergency rooms daily for free treatment paid for by higher prices on those of us who do pay for our own health insurance and who pay taxes.

The question was...

What if a young healthy male decides he can't afford healtcare and later comes down with cancer? Paul's response, cheered by the audience, he made his decision, face the consequences

Let em die

 

[rightwinger]

Bush and Bush alone ordered the invasion. At the time, the UN was asking for more time to prove there were no WMDs
Bush attacked before his phony WMDS story could fall apart

The UN had a conflict of interest to make that call. SEE OIL FOR FOOD. The UN and several stand alone members had incentive to keep him in power. Before Bush came into office, Democrats from 1993-2000 were crying for his removal and many Americans supported that. Bush did not go in on impulse to Iraq. Within weeks, we hit targets in Afghanastan. Bush built the case, garnered support among everyone, including Democrats who had been building the case before him. He even gave Saddam options to step down and go quietly. 9-11 was in September 2001. We hit Iraq in March 2003 with unanimous support among Democrats and Republicans alike. It was only after the invasion that majority of Democrats changed their tune and pretended like they wanted no part of it all along.

Hate to tell ya...

But the UN was proved right, Bush was proved wrong

Cost 6000 Americans their lives

Actually Bush liberated a country. Obama screwed it up.

Now tell us the part about how they treated us as liberators

 

[jknowgood]

Bush and Bush alone ordered the invasion. At the time, the UN was asking for more time to prove there were no WMDs
Bush attacked before his phony WMDS story could fall apart

The UN had a conflict of interest to make that call. SEE OIL FOR FOOD. The UN and several stand alone members had incentive to keep him in power. Before Bush came into office, Democrats from 1993-2000 were crying for his removal and many Americans supported that. Bush did not go in on impulse to Iraq. Within weeks, we hit targets in Afghanastan. Bush built the case, garnered support among everyone, including Democrats who had been building the case before him. He even gave Saddam options to step down and go quietly. 9-11 was in September 2001. We hit Iraq in March 2003 with unanimous support among Democrats and Republicans alike. It was only after the invasion that majority of Democrats changed their tune and pretended like they wanted no part of it all along.

Hate to tell ya...

But the UN was proved right, Bush was proved wrong

Cost 6000 Americans their lives

Actually Bush liberated a country. Obama screwed it up.

Now tell us the part about how they treated us as liberators

 

[rightwinger]

Bush and Bush alone ordered the invasion. At the time, the UN was asking for more time to prove there were no WMDs
Bush attacked before his phony WMDS story could fall apart

The UN had a conflict of interest to make that call. SEE OIL FOR FOOD. The UN and several stand alone members had incentive to keep him in power. Before Bush came into office, Democrats from 1993-2000 were crying for his removal and many Americans supported that. Bush did not go in on impulse to Iraq. Within weeks, we hit targets in Afghanastan. Bush built the case, garnered support among everyone, including Democrats who had been building the case before him. He even gave Saddam options to step down and go quietly. 9-11 was in September 2001. We hit Iraq in March 2003 with unanimous support among Democrats and Republicans alike. It was only after the invasion that majority of Democrats changed their tune and pretended like they wanted no part of it all along.

Hate to tell ya...

But the UN was proved right, Bush was proved wrong

Cost 6000 Americans their lives

Actually Bush liberated a country. Obama screwed it up.

Now tell us the part about how they treated us as liberators

View attachment 36631

Are those the trigger fingers?

 

[Kosh]

I don't deny it rightwinger, Obama is the biggest coward to occupy the office. He is a laughing stock.

Coward?

Tell it to bin Laden

It did take Obama 9 months to make that decision.

Did it?

He got him though. Bush spent seven years and let him get away

If it wasn't for Bush, bin laden would still be on the loose. We got the info on laden through water boarding. Your welcome.

Bush looked the other way as bin Laden escaped into Pakistan

More far left propaganda to cover the fact their religion supports ISIS..

 

[Kosh]

Bush and Bush alone ordered the invasion. At the time, the UN was asking for more time to prove there were no WMDs
Bush attacked before his phony WMDS story could fall apart

The UN had a conflict of interest to make that call. SEE OIL FOR FOOD. The UN and several stand alone members had incentive to keep him in power. Before Bush came into office, Democrats from 1993-2000 were crying for his removal and many Americans supported that. Bush did not go in on impulse to Iraq. Within weeks, we hit targets in Afghanastan. Bush built the case, garnered support among everyone, including Democrats who had been building the case before him. He even gave Saddam options to step down and go quietly. 9-11 was in September 2001. We hit Iraq in March 2003 with unanimous support among Democrats and Republicans alike. It was only after the invasion that majority of Democrats changed their tune and pretended like they wanted no part of it all along.

You are full of shit. I was among many liberals who supported Bush going after bin Laden in Afghanistan and vehemently opposed Bush's Hirohito invasion of Iraq, who had NOTHING to do with the attacks on 9/11.

If Bush had to depend on Democrats for his immoral invasion, authorization would have never made it out of the House of Representatives.

If only the Democrats votes were counted, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 would have never made it out of the House of Representatives.

United States House of Representatives
Party Yeas Nays Not Voting
Republican 215 6 2
Democratic 82 126 1
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 297 133 3

Says the far left drone that supports Obama's illegal wars..

 

[jknowgood]

The UN had a conflict of interest to make that call. SEE OIL FOR FOOD. The UN and several stand alone members had incentive to keep him in power. Before Bush came into office, Democrats from 1993-2000 were crying for his removal and many Americans supported that. Bush did not go in on impulse to Iraq. Within weeks, we hit targets in Afghanastan. Bush built the case, garnered support among everyone, including Democrats who had been building the case before him. He even gave Saddam options to step down and go quietly. 9-11 was in September 2001. We hit Iraq in March 2003 with unanimous support among Democrats and Republicans alike. It was only after the invasion that majority of Democrats changed their tune and pretended like they wanted no part of it all along.

Hate to tell ya...

But the UN was proved right, Bush was proved wrong

Cost 6000 Americans their lives

Actually Bush liberated a country. Obama screwed it up.

Now tell us the part about how they treated us as liberators

View attachment 36631

Are those the trigger fingers?

Nope, a liberated country, with citizens getting to vote. Something you don't support?

 

[rightwinger]

Hate to tell ya...

But the UN was proved right, Bush was proved wrong

Cost 6000 Americans their lives

Actually Bush liberated a country. Obama screwed it up.

Now tell us the part about how they treated us as liberators

View attachment 36631

Are those the trigger fingers?

Nope, a liberated country, with citizens getting to vote. Something you don't support?

Then how did we end up with 6000 dead Americans?

Bush never told us about that part

 

[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.

Iraq was a threat just as Al Qaeda was a threat. When 9-11 happened, within hours, the first thing that popped in my head was that saber rattling Saddam could see that a bunch of primitive pig fucker terrorists just easily hit US in the Achillies and that Saddam was capable of doing much more on his own.

It was a dream, based on no facts. You and the recovering alcoholic probably had the same flawed dream that led us into a needless and very costly war. We will be paying for Bush's MISSION ACCOMPLISHED for years to come. Makes you proud, huh?

 

[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.

 

[jknowgood]

Actually Bush liberated a country. Obama screwed it up.

Now tell us the part about how they treated us as liberators

View attachment 36631

Are those the trigger fingers?

Nope, a liberated country, with citizens getting to vote. Something you don't support?

Then how did we end up with 6000 dead Americans?

Bush never told us about that part

Have we ever fought a war with no casualties?

 

[rightwinger]

Now tell us the part about how they treated us as liberators

View attachment 36631

Are those the trigger fingers?

Nope, a liberated country, with citizens getting to vote. Something you don't support?

Then how did we end up with 6000 dead Americans?

Bush never told us about that part

Have we ever fought a war with no casualties?

It has never happened

That is why we have to be very cautious about the rationale for the wars we choose.

 

[healthmyths]

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!

 

[TooTall]

Bush and Bush alone ordered the invasion. At the time, the UN was asking for more time to prove there were no WMDs
Bush attacked before his phony WMDS story could fall apart

The UN SANCTIONS put in place by the UN simply asked Saddam "please certify you don't have WMDs" continued while Saddam let 576,000 children starve!
In five years 576,000 children starved BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
The sanctions were imposed by the Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Led by the United States, the Council has rejected many Iraqi appeals to lift the restrictions, which have crippled the economy, until Iraq accounts for all its weapons of mass destruction and United Nations inspectors can certify that they have been destroyed in accordance with several Council resolutions.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

NOW you idiots tell me IF Saddam refused to CERTIFY and he obviously didn't care about the starving kids... would you believe he HAD WMDs?
Would you believe his son in law?
A) Saddam was not ready to say he had NO WMDs and willing to let 576,000 kids starve.
B) Saddam WAS proven by the Democrats to having used WMDs on his own people.
C) Saddam was proven to pay $25,000 for suicide terrorists.
D) Ask Saddam's son-in-law...oh wait you can't Saddam killed him when he went back to Iraq... good guy your buddy Saddam!
E) And of course you probably don't agree after 9/11 there was NO need to think Saddam was involved right?
F) Were you aware that Seven days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, anonymous letters laced with deadly anthrax spores began arriving at media companies and congressional offices. Over the ensuing months, five people died from inhaling anthrax and 17 others were infected after exposure. And of course you knew that your buddy Saddam HAD nothing to do with it...even Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

Oddly, Republicans claimed to invade because of UN sanctions

Yet, when that same UN asked them to hold off the invasion until more evidence came in........they ignored them

They invaded because of WMDs. No wait, it was oil. Um...it was UN sanctions. When you decide the reason they invaded, let me know...

OIL...says who?

Are you paying attention??? The plans to invade Iraq were already being discussed 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

What we NOW know from G.W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary, the invasion of Iraq was discussed 10 days into the administration.

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq

Going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq - CBS News

[/QUOTE]

How utterly ignorant you are about what goes on at the Pentagon. I could find at least one document detailing the invasion and occupation of Canada and/or Mexico. That is what they do. Plan for contingencies that they hope they will never have to implement.

 

[healthmyths]

Bush and Bush alone ordered the invasion. At the time, the UN was asking for more time to prove there were no WMDs
Bush attacked before his phony WMDS story could fall apart

The UN SANCTIONS put in place by the UN simply asked Saddam "please certify you don't have WMDs" continued while Saddam let 576,000 children starve!
In five years 576,000 children starved BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
The sanctions were imposed by the Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Led by the United States, the Council has rejected many Iraqi appeals to lift the restrictions, which have crippled the economy, until Iraq accounts for all its weapons of mass destruction and United Nations inspectors can certify that they have been destroyed in accordance with several Council resolutions.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

NOW you idiots tell me IF Saddam refused to CERTIFY and he obviously didn't care about the starving kids... would you believe he HAD WMDs?
Would you believe his son in law?
A) Saddam was not ready to say he had NO WMDs and willing to let 576,000 kids starve.
B) Saddam WAS proven by the Democrats to having used WMDs on his own people.
C) Saddam was proven to pay $25,000 for suicide terrorists.
D) Ask Saddam's son-in-law...oh wait you can't Saddam killed him when he went back to Iraq... good guy your buddy Saddam!
E) And of course you probably don't agree after 9/11 there was NO need to think Saddam was involved right?
F) Were you aware that Seven days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, anonymous letters laced with deadly anthrax spores began arriving at media companies and congressional offices. Over the ensuing months, five people died from inhaling anthrax and 17 others were infected after exposure. And of course you knew that your buddy Saddam HAD nothing to do with it...even Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

Oddly, Republicans claimed to invade because of UN sanctions

Yet, when that same UN asked them to hold off the invasion until more evidence came in........they ignored them

They invaded because of WMDs. No wait, it was oil. Um...it was UN sanctions. When you decide the reason they invaded, let me know...

OIL...says who?

Are you paying attention??? The plans to invade Iraq were already being discussed 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

What we NOW know from G.W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary, the invasion of Iraq was discussed 10 days into the administration.

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq

Going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq - CBS News

How utterly ignorant you are about what goes on at the Pentagon. I could find at least one document detailing the invasion and occupation of Canada and/or Mexico. That is what they do. Plan for contingencies that they hope they will never have to implement.[/QUOTE]

AND how f...king ignorant both YOU and the Pentagon are by using the term "INVASION"!
Why did you excuse Clinton for calling it the "Liberation of Iraq" then?
The use of the word is a negative...even Invasion of Mexico! YOU don't seem to comprehend how words have MEANINGS and I would not be
favorable to the Invasion of America by ISIS!

 

[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

 

[TooTall]

They DID let 'em die...

Ron Paul’s Campaign Manager Died Sick and Uninsured, the Way ‘Freedom’ Allows

At the fifth GOP debate this week, moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul, a doctor, whether someone who opts to not buy health insurance and then gets sick should be allowed to die. The crowd responded with startling shouts of "Yeah!" followed by applause, leaving even Rick Perry "taken aback." Paul's answer, while more gentle, was more or less the same. "That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to take care of everybody ... " said Paul, who was cut off by clapping from the audience. While you wouldn't know it from his answer, Blizter's hypothetical probably hit close to home for Paul, whose campaign manager Kent Snyder died young of pneumonia — without insurance — in 2008.

Maybe we should investigate how many has died under obamacare because they couldn't afford the deductible. I'm sure it would be more than one. Thanks for playing.

We could even say they paid for their obamacare and still died. Thanks Obama! See how that works dipshit?

Amazing they let retards post here.

Oh, so paul says it's all about freedom, taking your own risks. Then a staffer dies without insurance. It's Paul's fault?

On the other side, Obama forces someone to pay for insurance. Even though they can't afford the deductible they have to pay for it. Or get taxed at the end of the year. If they get sick, and cannot afford the deductible. Then dies? Nothing to see here, right? Hypocrite.

First of all, as a liberal I would have much preferred 'single payer' like most civilized industrial nations have for their citizens. My second choice would be a 'public option', where I could BUY into Medicare before the age of 65. Instead, we got the 1993-94 Republican healthcare plan, right down to the 'individual mandate'

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010
Republican Origins of Democratic Health Care Provision

'Instead, we got the 1993-94 Republican healthcare plan, right down to the 'individual mandate.'
If we did, we got it without a single Republican vote. LOL

 

[TooTall]

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.

I would like to remind a simple minded pissant that the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED was aimed at honoring the US Carrier and the US Sailors that had clearly accomplished the mission they were sent to perform. Anti-American fucktards twisted it to dishonor our military and the Commander in Chief.

 

[rightwinger]

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

For some reason, you keep leaving out this quote:

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002