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.
Ms Clinton and the rest of Congress were repeatedly lied to and misled by the administration. The facts were that since the UN inspectors left, Saddam had done nothing to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, or his nuclear program. It was only disinformation that allowed anyone to draw such a conclusion. Nor did Iraq provide any materially relevant aid, comfort, and sanctuary to al Al Qaeda members, even though some of them injured in Agfhanistan were able to hide out north of the no-fly zone and sneak into Baghdad for medical attention. All allegations above and beyond that were examples of misleading and disinformation as well. The best that the administration ever had was laid out by a reluctant Colin Powell at his regretable UN dog-and-pony show, and nearly every sliver of it has been discredited since. This entire invasion was based on lies, and the administration knew full well that they were lies at the time. It's really quite incredible that some folks still don't...
I guess we can all assume that Senator Clinton was lied to by President Clinton.. History has proven that he's a lier.
I guess we can all assume that Senator Clinton was lied to by President Clinton.. History has proven that he's a lier.
I'd be willing to bet that despite all that cherry tree nonsense, George Washington lied to Martha a time or two as well. Did you mean to make an actual point of any sort? Say, one related to the thread?
The plan to defeat the Iraqi army went off really well. It was the lack of plan to maintain a stable government that has failed utterly.
I never supported going to war with Iraq. We still havent finished in afghanistan. Fighting a war on 2 fronts???? No comment needed.
As for the intel on Iraq.
MI-6 believed he had the weapons.
The mussad believed he had the weapons.
The CIA believed he had the weapons. ( Regardless of what they say now)
CIA never known for their integrety, or honesty. No secret soldiers dont trust spooks.
England was pushing for Clinton to invade, GWB went for it. No one is accusing him of being smart.
Congress based on the same intel Bush and company had went for it.
Senate went for it.
Guess what most americans were all for it.
snap we screwed up.
We didn't screw up, that war would be being fought right here in your back yard, (you got a gun?) they knew what they were doing to bring the war to there soil, blow up all their sh!& in stead of ours, nice to be a Monday morning quarterback, the guys that are fighting JOINED the service, that meens they wanted to fight, even if ther mommys didn't want them too.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by GENO-777
We didn't screw up, that war would be being fought right here in your back yard, (you got a gun?) they knew what they were doing to bring the war to there soil, blow up all their sh!& in stead of ours, nice to be a Monday morning quarterback, the guys that are fighting JOINED the service, that meens they wanted to fight, even if ther mommys didn't want them too.
Somewhere in those 600,000 pages of documentation they found Saddam's plans for a US invasion using the Iraqi Army?
Do you think he realized they'd have to line up behind the Vietnamese bringing their war here?
I'd be willing to bet that despite all that cherry tree nonsense, George Washington lied to Martha a time or two as well. Did you mean to make an actual point of any sort?
Lets talk about moving off the thread, tell me what George Washington has to do with Saddam Huseein and al-Qaeda? Anyways, George Washington never chopped down the cherry tree, learn history.
As for the statement, I know its tough for you to follow the thread, here I'll help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
Hillary Clinton 10/10/2002..
We did not go to war against Iraq because of September 11th attacks, even though Senator Clintor continues to try to argue that she was mislead about their connection.
Senator Clinton LOVES to toute all of her international experience, all of her knowledge and how she has helped President Clinton while in office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Ms Clinton and the rest of Congress were repeatedly lied to and misled by the administration. The facts were that since the UN inspectors left, Saddam had done nothing to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, or his nuclear program. It was only disinformation that allowed anyone to draw such a conclusion. Nor did Iraq provide any materially relevant aid, comfort, and sanctuary to al Al Qaeda members, even though some of them injured in Agfhanistan were able to hide out north of the no-fly zone and sneak into Baghdad for medical attention. All allegations above and beyond that were examples of misleading and disinformation as well. The best that the administration ever had was laid out by a reluctant Colin Powell at his regretable UN dog-and-pony show, and nearly every sliver of it has been discredited since. This entire invasion was based on lies, and the administration knew full well that they were lies at the time. It's really quite incredible that some folks still don't...
Her own statement says that she was not lied to about the connection between Iraq and a-Qaeda. She very clearly stated that there was no connection when she voted for the war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I guess we can all assume that Senator Clinton was lied to by President Clinton.. History has proven that he's a lier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Did you mean to make an actual point of any sort? Say, one related to the thread?
Right.. I guess we can only use Senators vast experience and knowledge when it comes to her benefit. When it doesnt benefit her, its all Bushs' fault. Nice try but she's either knowledgable and very familiar with international affairs during her husbands presidency or she wasnt. You cant have it both ways. The world did not change enough in the one year between the time that she was out of office, and 911. Blaming Bush for her incompetence, especially when her own speach states that there was no connection is not going to fly on this one.
It is unbelievable to me those that still support Bush and the Iraq war.It's like you are so stubborn that you justcan't bear to admit that it's a mess up.
If you think it's alright to invade a country even after the reason to do so is proven false,if you think it's alright to go to war as a pre-emptive strike,if you think it's alright to force others to submit to our style of government not because its in their benefit but because it serves the benefit of the USA,then spare us from saying that we are "good guys" and admit that American interests are the only thing that matter even if it causes death and tramples our Constitution and very soul as a nation.
It's called being a hawkish Bush supporter which if it was a Democrat president doing the same thing the die hard Republicans would be calling for a end to the war.
Some Republicans want less government but turn a blind eye to abuse of government when it's a Republican in office,which is tanamount to pledging alliegence to the Republican party above the Constitution.
It is unbelievable to me those that still support Bush and the Iraq war.It's like you are so stubborn that you justcan't bear to admit that it's a mess up.
If you think it's alright to invade a country even after the reason to do so is proven false,if you think it's alright to go to war as a pre-emptive strike,if you think it's alright to force others to submit to our style of government not because its in their benefit but because it serves the benefit of the USA,then spare us from saying that we are "good guys" and admit that American interests are the only thing that matter even if it causes death and tramples our Constitution and very soul as a nation.
It's called being a hawkish Bush supporter which if it was a Democrat president doing the same thing the die hard Republicans would be calling for a end to the war.
Some Republicans want less government but turn a blind eye to abuse of government when it's a Republican in office,which is tanamount to pledging alliegence to the Republican party above the Constitution.
wooooo hooo I'll bet your a DEMOCRAT. lets face it there all crook's, I will make a prediction, And a gentleman's bet. If Obama wins the primaries, Hilary will run on her own ticket. any takers?
If you think it's alright to invade a country even after the reason to do so is proven false, . . .
You guys can keep repeating this phrase until you really believe it but the facts are that the resolution, the one Hillary personally researched and voted for, public law 107-243 of Oct 16, 2002, gave some 23 reasons to authorize force against Iraq. Even if you discard WMD (ignoring that fact the Iraq gassed thousands of its own citizens prior to 2002 and much may have been snuck out prior to the invasion) there still remains 22 reasons.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by LNTT_Vacationer
You guys can keep repeating this phrase until you really believe it but the facts are that the resolution, the one Hillary personally researched and voted for, public law 107-243 of Oct 16, 2002, gave some 23 reasons to authorize force against Iraq. Even if you discard WMD (ignoring that fact the Iraq gassed thousands of its own citizens prior to 2002 and much may have been snuck out prior to the invasion) there still remains 22 reasons.
WHICH one(s) made Iraq a priority in the wake of 9/11, a more important target than those responsible for 9/11?
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.
