Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yet you ALWAYS IGNORE the SAME info was being used by the Clinton and his admin.
It's been explained to you that those statements, whether or not they were true when they were spoken, doesn't make Bush's statements made five years later true. Why not just admit that Republicans are responsible for their own incompetence and mendacity instead of making the same failed arguments again and again?
It's been explained to you that those statements, whether or not they were true when they were spoken, doesn't make Bush's statements made five years later true. Why not just admit that Republicans are responsible for their own incompetence and mendacity instead of making the same failed arguments again and again?
Dane_in_LA summarizes it quite well:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
If it hadn't been for the WMD marketing campaign, there would have been no way to build the war hysteria that propelled the US into the Iraq war. There's no shortage of bad guys in power in this world.
The marketing campaign started during the Clinton administration and leading Democrats helped keep it rolling right up until invasion.
----------
The point is that they were not "lies". A person can only "lie" when they know what they are saying isn't true. Clinton and top Democrats believed the same reports given to Bush. They also came to the same conclusion as Bush that military might may be the only answer left.
Clinton's policies regarding Iraq were very specific, and didn't allow for invasion. I don't agree with Clinton dropping bombs instead of pulling his spies from the inspection teams when asked to, but it's silly to pretend the invasion lies with Clinton and his administration and not Bush's PNAC cabinet.
Or, tout court, what colour was Clinton's Rainbow of Fear?
No. The idea was that maybe there was something rotten and abandoned, but the facts didn't support Republican claims. Remember how Republican scum talked about Curveball like his claims had merit even though they knew he was worthless? Probably not.
" Remember how Republican scum"
If you want to talk like a 17 year old street punk, PLEASE find another forum site.
Language like this doesn't bode well for your reputation.
"If you don't have ANYTHING of value to add, throw juvenile insults"
Check out your history...Both of these parties have the same agenda- do not let any country stop using the American dollar. If the world goes away from the American dollar, the rich bankers who fund both of these parties loses vast amounts of power, control, and money.
JFK was going to stop the Federal Reserve and go back to silver certificates / currency backed by gold & silver. He was murdered 5 months later and LBJ then reversed JFK order. We need to stop the conservative versus liberal nonsense. The media is owned by the bankers-wake-up!
I couldn't care less about my reputation among Bush apologists.
Keep in mind that nobody has apologized for Bush, we've simply been trying to understand why you keep apologizing for the Democrats and pretending that they were not involved.
"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
The marketing campaign started during the Clinton administration and leading Democrats helped keep it rolling right up until invasion...
Well - during a good chunk of te Clinton admin, there were in fact WMD and WMD installations in Iraq. We know this, because UNSCOM was busy criss-crossing the country and blowing that sh.t up left and right.
What we couldn't know for sure was what the effect this had - as it turns out, a pretty profound effect.
Iraq for the most part managed to keep a theoretical knowledge base intact, but there was no development, no production and no operational weapons in 2003. The only tangible transgression uncovered by UNMOVIC before they were pulled out were the long-range Al Samoud rockets, and Iraq destroyed those.
Well - during a good chunk of te Clinton admin, there were in fact WMD and WMD installations in Iraq. We know this, because UNSCOM was busy criss-crossing the country and blowing that sh.t up left and right.
What we couldn't know for sure was what the effect this had - as it turns out, a pretty profound effect.
Iraq for the most part managed to keep a theoretical knowledge base intact, but there was no development, no production and no operational weapons in 2003. The only tangible transgression uncovered by UNMOVIC before they were pulled out were the long-range Al Samoud rockets, and Iraq destroyed those.
Weapons inspectors said that there was a large amount of chemical weapons still unaccounted for and a lack of evidence of Iraq disposing of chemical weapons they reported to destroy just prior to the war. Add to that the fact that inspectors were kept from sites and delayed from inspecting other sites.
We had no idea how much was left, and it's just a fact that there was clearly a reason to suspect that they retained a significant amount of material.
Earlier in this thread I posted a very concise summary about the inspections. You may want to review it.
1) where you get your facts that what's going on Syria and Iraq with ISIS is the main cause from the Iraq invasion? You think Isis would be doing what they are doing in Iraq if Obama would have let U.S. Troops in Iraq and didn't go against the advise of all his top generals and Secretary of Defense?
lol
Seriously?
When did ISIS declare the Islamic State of Iraq? That would be 2006.
You lose. Not only do you lose, you just demonstrated to everyone, with what might just be the two dumbest, uninformed questions I've ever seen posed by anyone anywhere, that you have absolutely no clue about what you're talking about, at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
2) Congress gave Bush authorization to go in Iraq. They funded the war. Congress could have easily stop the funding if they objected to the invasion. Can't have it both ways.
1. Can't have it both ways? Funny from someone trying to absolve Bush and hang the hat on the Democrats.
2. The invasion was the Bush administration's idea. When asked what they'd do in the even that Congress turned down their request to authorize the use of force in Iraq, a spokesperson said that the authorization to use force in the War on Terror would be good enough. Thus, they were going to invade Iraq with or without Congress.
3. The Bush administration carefully cherry-picked the intelligence, removed all the caveats about the intelligence, including, and most importantly, the fact that US intelligence was aware that the informant known as "Curveball", the one responsible for most of the so-called "evidence" was thought to be a liar by his German handlers and that intelligence that he had given before the invasion that could be confirmed, turned out to be false (literally, every single thing he gave them that they attempted to confirm before the invasion turned out to be false--and that was before the invasion)--but they still used it anyway (just like they used the phony yellowcake uranium story even after it was debunked). That does no absolve Congress of any blame, they absolutely do deserve some, but the invasion was the Bush Administration's baby.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
3) Actually, the occupation ended well after the surge. It went downhill when Obama decided to pull out all ground troops for political reasons against the advise of his top generals and Secretary of Defense, something you are ignoring to the mess we have with Isis....the same president that doesn't want to engage head on ISIS and doesn't want to offend them or call this for what it is a HOLY WAR.
lol
More comedic regurgitation of lying right wing talking points that are not grounded in any kind of objective reality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
