Bush didn't just lie........

[depotoo]

Maybe you should. They were not in compliance, nor had regime change occurred, which Clinton wanted, after operation desert fox. 1999 resolution after desert fox-

United Nations Security Council resolution 1284, adopted on 17 December 1999, after recalling previous relevant resolutions onIraq, including resolutions 661(1990), 687 (1991), 699 (1991),707 (1991), 715 (1991), 986(1995), 1051 (1996), 1153 (1998),1175 (1998), 1242 (1999) and1266 (1999), the Council established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission(UNMOVIC) to replace the United Nations Special Commission(UNSCOM).[1] It was the final resolution adopted in 1999.

Resolution 1284 was adopted by 11 votes to none against and fourabstentions from China and Russia.[1] Iraq rejected the resolution, particularly as it did not meet its requirement for the lifting of sanctions imposed in 1990.[2] Despite the adoption of the resolution, it did not lead to the return of United Nations weapons inspectors or changes in the humanitarian programme.[3]
Nov 8, 2000

PRESIDENT CLINTON: And, you know, remember, this is the only guy, the only world leader today who has used chemical weapons on his own citizens. And the American people in my judgement should give him all the money he needs to take care of his kids. But should do everything we can, and even if we are alone, to try to stop him from being in a position of murdering his kids again, and murdering other children in the Middle East. That's what I believe.
http://www.saveageneration.org/thecrisis/analysis_clinton_nov00.html
audio radio interview with Amy Goodwin,





-

Seriously?? Seriously?? Her husband had just been in office, knew people, and her hubby had signed into legislation that Saddam needed to be dealt with and removed.
Are you naive or trying to fool the masses that don't know better?

George W. Bush didn t just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse.

Hillary did as well. She made the case to go to war and then voted to give Bush the authorization to do so; yet liberals can't find it within themselves to blame anyone else but Bush.



Hillary got Americans killed by HER OWN incompetence then lied...then called the grieving family members 'liars'...and Liberals defend her. The hypocritical rabid partisanship demonstrated constantly by Liberals is truly amazing.

Hillary supported the war based on the info Congress was getting from the lying scumbags, Bush/Cheney....you can't blame her, but alas, that's what conservatives do, they twist everything to make themselves not look like the hawks and obstructionists they are.

Apparently you are another of many ignorant and uninformed Johnny come lately.....of course Clinton signed legislation that Saddam needed to be dealt with....back in the 90's....but apparently you don't know the rest of the story. By the time Bush got elected, Saddam had been dealt with....that is the reason for Operation Desert Fox.


In response to Saddam Hussein's continued refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors, the United States Government planned Operation DESERT FOX in the fall of 1998. The primary mission of DESERT FOX was to strike military targets in Iraq that contributed to its ability to produce, store, maintain, and deliver weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The U.S. government expected to achieve several goals with the operation. First, it would degrade Iraq's ability to create and employ WMD. Second, the attacks would diminish Iraq's capability to wage war against its neighbors. Third, the operation would impress upon Saddam Hussein the consequences of violating international agreements, including allowing United Nations inspectors unfettered access to Iraqi sites. The United States and Great Britain launched Operation DESERT FOX on December 16, 1998, after U.N. Chief Inspector Richard Butler notified the U.N. that Iraq had failed to provide full cooperation during inspections.
Factsheets : Operation Desert Fox

Perhaps that is why you conservatives continue to defend Bush.....you all are so ignorant, don't know history and just blabber nonsense.

Now go do some research you don't continue to appear so stupid as the rest of the ignoramuses who keep claiming that Bill Clinton wanted to invade Iraq when George W. Bush was president, because at that time, Bill Clinton was no longer privy to Intelligence information on Iraq.

 

[BlindBoo]

Clinton is not President now, but I can definitely point out how Obama claimed his goal from the start was to 'contain' ISIS, not defeat it, and how HE had successfully contained them....the night before ISIS made a world-class FOOL of Obama by perpetrating the largest attack on France since WW2.

To say "his goal from the start was to 'contain' ISIS, not defeat it" and it may be your opinion, but on Sept 10, 2014......

We can’t erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today. And that’s why we must remain vigilant as threats emerge. At this moment, the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL -- which calls itself the “Islamic State.” ...........

Our Intelligence Community believes that thousands of foreigners -– including Europeans and some Americans –- have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks. ...........................

Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy.

First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists. ........

Statement by the President on ISIL

So again your claim is utterly false, the goal is to destroy them.

 

[Faun]

Liberals should also cut the hypocritical crap of condemning W when Obama has done the very same thing SEVERAL times:

Completely false. Not once did he invade and occupy any country.

No, he just bombed Libya from the air until the government fell. He also expanded Afghanistan and followed W's timeline in Iraq. He meddled in Egypt until he pissed off the government who told him to go to hell and he tried to take out the Syrian government until Putin made Obama his bitch.

Sorry, what was your point again???

Let see there were about 8600 US personnel involved in the Joint NATO operation in carrying out a UN mission in Libya, it pales in compared to 2.5 million US soldiers who served in Iraq over the US Led invasion and occupation. But I suppose we could have let Qaddafi attack Benghazi, no skin off our backs. No comparison no invasion and no US death tolls either. You think Obama made the Egyptian people rise up? The agreement with the Egyptian Military still holds and that's our main concern there. No US troops involved either. In Syria, if you recall there were war ships headed to the area for a limited strike (because Congress wouldn't give Obama any type of a mandate) when Kerry offered them a way to avoid it. No massive invasion there either. Fighting ISIS, 1 special ops causality during a rescue mission and still no authorization from the worthless Congress to fight ISIS.

Like I said the comparison is completely and utterly false.

To the loony right, enforcing a no fly zone for 7 months is the same as a 9 year full-scale war, occupation, and nation building.

 

[MarcATL]

Now it is the Democrats fault for not telling him to go fuck himself

Yes that's how it works, it's called taking accountability for your decisions, I know that is a strange concept for lazy Liberals such as yourself...

But "The Decider" gets a pass. Right?

 

[MarcATL]

Clinton is not President now, but I can definitely point out how Obama claimed his goal from the start was to 'contain' ISIS, not defeat it, and how HE had successfully contained them....the night before ISIS made a world-class FOOL of Obama by perpetrating the largest attack on France since WW2.

To say "his goal from the start was to 'contain' ISIS, not defeat it" and it may be your opinion, but on Sept 10, 2014......

We can’t erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today. And that’s why we must remain vigilant as threats emerge. At this moment, the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL -- which calls itself the “Islamic State.” ...........

Our Intelligence Community believes that thousands of foreigners -– including Europeans and some Americans –- have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks. ...........................

Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy.

First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists. ........

Statement by the President on ISIL

So again your claim is utterly false, the goal is to destroy them.

Rightwing Republicans like Easy think that you just have to keep repeating a lie and suddenly it becomes true. It's how they deal and cope with everything.

 

[GWV5903]

Bwahahaha, says a supporter of a party who blames everything they screw up on someone else....like the Iraq invasion....it's Clinton's fault.....

I understand Bwahahaha is your excuse for not having anything relevant to respond with, you would be better off saying nothing...

When Clinton VOTED to APPROVE THE INVASION OF IRAQ IT BECAME HER FAULT, DECISION, EXCUSE, ETC...

And she wasn't in the minority, she was in the MAJORITY LED DEMOCRAT SENATE (77% YEA to 23% NAY) shit that has to burn, LOL...

I know it's hard for you to understand how the system works, but Bush had the support of both Houses...

 

[GWV5903]

Now it is the Democrats fault for not telling him to go fuck himself

Yes that's how it works, it's called taking accountability for your decisions, I know that is a strange concept for lazy Liberals such as yourself...

I agree

It is usually the Democrats responsibility to tell Republicans they are full of shit and stop their foolishness....Democrats should have known better about Iraq

You obviously don't understand that the words Democrat and responsibility rarely if ever are used in the same sentence...

Democrats were calling for Saddam's exit long before Bush was elected, but you would have to have a modicum of basic common sense to realize this, you don't it's okay...

 

[Faun]

Bwahahaha, says a supporter of a party who blames everything they screw up on someone else....like the Iraq invasion....it's Clinton's fault.....

I understand Bwahahaha is your excuse for not having anything relevant to respond with, you would be better off saying nothing...

When Clinton VOTED to APPROVE THE INVASION OF IRAQ IT BECAME HER FAULT, DECISION, EXCUSE, ETC...

And she wasn't in the minority, she was in the MAJORITY LED DEMOCRAT SENATE (77% YEA to 23% NAY) shit that has to burn, LOL...

I know it's hard for you to understand how the system works, but Bush had the support of both Houses...

In the House....

Republicans ... 96%
Democrats ..... 39%

And the vote was to allow Bush to use military force only if it was needed to prevent a threat by Iraq.

Iraq was not a threat.

As Commander-in-Chief, Bush is responsible for deploying troops into war over a non-existent threat against a country which had not attacked us and was not in possession of the weapons for which Bush invaded.

 

[GWV5903]

But "The Decider" gets a pass. Right?

You don't know what you're talking about Marc...

The Wars Power Resolution requires Congress to approve, in this case a Democrat led Senate gave him 77% YEA, if that's too difficult for you to understand you need to get on the USMB Jr. Board...

 

[Dot Com]

 

[Dot Com]

 

[GWV5903]

Bwahahaha, says a supporter of a party who blames everything they screw up on someone else....like the Iraq invasion....it's Clinton's fault.....

I understand Bwahahaha is your excuse for not having anything relevant to respond with, you would be better off saying nothing...

When Clinton VOTED to APPROVE THE INVASION OF IRAQ IT BECAME HER FAULT, DECISION, EXCUSE, ETC...

And she wasn't in the minority, she was in the MAJORITY LED DEMOCRAT SENATE (77% YEA to 23% NAY) shit that has to burn, LOL...

I know it's hard for you to understand how the system works, but Bush had the support of both Houses...

In the House....

Republicans ... 96%
Democrats ..... 39%

And the vote was to allow Bush to use military force only if it was needed to prevent a threat by Iraq.

Iraq was not a threat.

As Commander-in-Chief, Bush is responsible for deploying troops into war over a non-existent threat against a country which had not attacked us and was not in possession of the weapons for which Bush invaded.

The resolution had unanimous support in both the House and the Senate...

House voted 296 YEA to 133 NAY and the DEMOCRAT LED Senate 77 YEA to 23 NAY...

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

It's Black and White, simple to understand that enough DEMOCRATS voted to support the Iraq War Resolution...

If I was as wrong as many times as you weak ass liberal hacks, I would leave the board...

 

[Faun]

Bwahahaha, says a supporter of a party who blames everything they screw up on someone else....like the Iraq invasion....it's Clinton's fault.....

I understand Bwahahaha is your excuse for not having anything relevant to respond with, you would be better off saying nothing...

When Clinton VOTED to APPROVE THE INVASION OF IRAQ IT BECAME HER FAULT, DECISION, EXCUSE, ETC...

And she wasn't in the minority, she was in the MAJORITY LED DEMOCRAT SENATE (77% YEA to 23% NAY) shit that has to burn, LOL...

I know it's hard for you to understand how the system works, but Bush had the support of both Houses...

In the House....

Republicans ... 96%
Democrats ..... 39%

And the vote was to allow Bush to use military force only if it was needed to prevent a threat by Iraq.

Iraq was not a threat.

As Commander-in-Chief, Bush is responsible for deploying troops into war over a non-existent threat against a country which had not attacked us and was not in possession of the weapons for which Bush invaded.

The resolution had unanimous support in both the House and the Senate...

House voted 296 YEA to 133 NAY and the DEMOCRAT LED Senate 77 YEA to 23 NAY...

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

It's Black and White, simple to understand that enough DEMOCRATS voted to support the Iraq War Resolution...

If I was as wrong as many times as you weak ass liberal hacks, I would leave the board...

It passed only because so many Republicans supported it. As you were shown, 96% of Republicans in the House voted for it; whereas 61% of Democrats voted against it.

And again, the vote was to give Bush the authority to use force if Iraq was a threat.

Iraq was not a threat.

 

[kaz]

Liberals should also cut the hypocritical crap of condemning W when Obama has done the very same thing SEVERAL times:

Completely false. Not once did he invade and occupy any country.

No, he just bombed Libya from the air until the government fell. He also expanded Afghanistan and followed W's timeline in Iraq. He meddled in Egypt until he pissed off the government who told him to go to hell and he tried to take out the Syrian government until Putin made Obama his bitch.

Sorry, what was your point again???

Let see there were about 8600 US personnel involved in the Joint NATO operation in carrying out a UN mission in Libya, it pales in compared to 2.5 million US soldiers who served in Iraq over the US Led invasion and occupation. But I suppose we could have let Qaddafi attack Benghazi, no skin off our backs. No comparison no invasion and no US death tolls either. You think Obama made the Egyptian people rise up? The agreement with the Egyptian Military still holds and that's our main concern there. No US troops involved either. In Syria, if you recall there were war ships headed to the area for a limited strike (because Congress wouldn't give Obama any type of a mandate) when Kerry offered them a way to avoid it. No massive invasion there either. Fighting ISIS, 1 special ops causality during a rescue mission and still no authorization from the worthless Congress to fight ISIS.

Like I said the comparison is completely and utterly false.

So your standard was "not once," then it just became well it was smaller. LOL. He didn't reduce the size of Iraq, he continued W's plan and he expended Afghanistan. Now you can come back with your next bububububbut.... I actually oppose those militaristic policies. Unlike you, I don't just oppose them based on the party in power. If anywhere in the fog of a brain you have you actually care about reducing our military footprint rather than partisan bickering, those of us who actually care could use the help. Democrats sure aren't giving it

 

[Tehon]

As with the Reagan administration (and with many of the same people behind the scenes), the purpose of the Bushleague was to propel America into a situation that would leave succeeding administrations, and even generations, little if any choice. The policies establish by the clique would have to be pursued.

Nailed it!

Their Goal: The neoconservative agenda

Established in the spring of 1997 and funded largely by the energy and arms industries,the Project for the New American Century was founded as the neoconservative think tank whose stated goal was to usher in a “new American century”. Having won the cold war and no military threat to speak of, this group of ideologues created a blueprint for the future whose agenda was to capitalize upon our surplus of military forces and funds and forcing American hegemony and corporate privatization throughout the world. In theirstatement of principles they outline a fourfold agenda:

1) Increase an already enormous military budget at the expense of domestic social programs

2) Toppling of regimes resistant to our corporate interests
3) Forcing democracy at the barrel of a gun in regions that have no history of the democratic process
4) Replacing the UN’s role of preserving and extending international order
(This all can be read in their own words at www.newamericancentury.org



Project for the New American Century (PNAC)-All about them

This is good stuff ^ and it is key to understanding events that have transpired since 9/11. The Neocons, who came to power with the GWB administration, believe that as the sole superpower the US must shape events in the world in an effort to undermine any nation that might in the future challenge US dominance. Coincidentally, or not, they got their Pearl Harbor type event and set about shaping the world. And it is clear who they feel threatened by.

there4eyeM did nail it. Promoting Nouri al-Maliki as PM of Iraq was the guarantor that succeeding administrations would be dealing with this situation in the ME for the foreseeable future. That was the fuse that lit the powder keg.

This situation that the US is dealing with in the ME is Bush's baby, those who think otherwise do so out of ignorance.

 

[kaz]

As with the Reagan administration (and with many of the same people behind the scenes), the purpose of the Bushleague was to propel America into a situation that would leave succeeding administrations, and even generations, little if any choice. The policies establish by the clique would have to be pursued.

Nailed it!

Their Goal: The neoconservative agenda

Established in the spring of 1997 and funded largely by the energy and arms industries,the Project for the New American Century was founded as the neoconservative think tank whose stated goal was to usher in a “new American century”. Having won the cold war and no military threat to speak of, this group of ideologues created a blueprint for the future whose agenda was to capitalize upon our surplus of military forces and funds and forcing American hegemony and corporate privatization throughout the world. In theirstatement of principles they outline a fourfold agenda:

1) Increase an already enormous military budget at the expense of domestic social programs

2) Toppling of regimes resistant to our corporate interests
3) Forcing democracy at the barrel of a gun in regions that have no history of the democratic process
4) Replacing the UN’s role of preserving and extending international order
(This all can be read in their own words at www.newamericancentury.org



Project for the New American Century (PNAC)-All about them

This is good stuff ^ and it is key to understanding events that have transpired since 9/11. The Neocons, who came to power with the GWB administration, believe that as the sole superpower the US must shape events in the world in an effort to undermine any nation that might in the future challenge US dominance. Coincidentally, or not, they got their Pearl Harbor type event and set about shaping the world. And it is clear who they feel threatened by.

there4eyeM did nail it. Promoting Nouri al-Maliki as PM of Iraq was the guarantor that succeeding administrations would be dealing with this situation in the ME for the foreseeable future. That was the fuse that lit the powder keg.

This situation that the US is dealing with in the ME is Bush's baby, those who think otherwise do so out of ignorance.

True. Republicans are like Democrats that way

 

[Tehon]

As with the Reagan administration (and with many of the same people behind the scenes), the purpose of the Bushleague was to propel America into a situation that would leave succeeding administrations, and even generations, little if any choice. The policies establish by the clique would have to be pursued.

Nailed it!

Their Goal: The neoconservative agenda

Established in the spring of 1997 and funded largely by the energy and arms industries,the Project for the New American Century was founded as the neoconservative think tank whose stated goal was to usher in a “new American century”. Having won the cold war and no military threat to speak of, this group of ideologues created a blueprint for the future whose agenda was to capitalize upon our surplus of military forces and funds and forcing American hegemony and corporate privatization throughout the world. In theirstatement of principles they outline a fourfold agenda:

1) Increase an already enormous military budget at the expense of domestic social programs

2) Toppling of regimes resistant to our corporate interests
3) Forcing democracy at the barrel of a gun in regions that have no history of the democratic process
4) Replacing the UN’s role of preserving and extending international order
(This all can be read in their own words at www.newamericancentury.org



Project for the New American Century (PNAC)-All about them

This is good stuff ^ and it is key to understanding events that have transpired since 9/11. The Neocons, who came to power with the GWB administration, believe that as the sole superpower the US must shape events in the world in an effort to undermine any nation that might in the future challenge US dominance. Coincidentally, or not, they got their Pearl Harbor type event and set about shaping the world. And it is clear who they feel threatened by.

there4eyeM did nail it. Promoting Nouri al-Maliki as PM of Iraq was the guarantor that succeeding administrations would be dealing with this situation in the ME for the foreseeable future. That was the fuse that lit the powder keg.

This situation that the US is dealing with in the ME is Bush's baby, those who think otherwise do so out of ignorance.

True. Republicans are like Democrats that way

In what way, ignorant? Of course, Americans are kept ignorant and divisiveness is encouraged. Divide and conquer is very effective at maintaining the status quo.

 

[Freewill]

They succeeded in making most Americans accept the whole "false intel" story. After all.....lots of Dems fell for the FALSE INTEL too!

Problem is.....Bush and his staff knew that the intel was false. They fucking created the intel.

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9 11 - CBS News

Mrs Clinton was duped by such a fool as GWB. How is Putin going to get over on her if she is the incredibly stupid? Mrs. Clintnon had insider information that no one in the Senate had access and she enthusiastically supported the war.

 

[LoneLaugher]

They succeeded in making most Americans accept the whole "false intel" story. After all.....lots of Dems fell for the FALSE INTEL too!

Problem is.....Bush and his staff knew that the intel was false. They fucking created the intel.

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9 11 - CBS News

Mrs Clinton was duped by such a fool as GWB. How is Putin going to get over on her if she is the incredibly stupid? Mrs. Clintnon had insider information that no one in the Senate had access and she enthusiastically supported the war.

How do you know what information she had? She didn't have the info that W had. That's a fact. He had all the info. He lied. She believed his lie. Who is the problem?

Weird people think Hillary Clinton is responsible for invading Iraq.

 

[Freewill]

This is a pathetic OP link/blog even from RW, oh yea we heard in the news in the early 2000s that Iraq was going to attack the US mainland, WTF?

From the same link:
And each and every time the message was the same: If we didn't wage war, Iraq was going to attack the United States homeland with its enormous arsenal of ghastly weapons

Could you provide a quote of someone saying anything like that?

They succeeded in making most Americans accept the whole "false intel" story. After all.....lots of Dems fell for the FALSE INTEL too!

Problem is.....Bush and his staff knew that the intel was false. They fucking created the intel.

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9 11 - CBS News

Mrs Clinton was duped by such a fool as GWB. How is Putin going to get over on her if she is the incredibly stupid? Mrs. Clintnon had insider information that no one in the Senate had access and she enthusiastically supported the war.

How do you know what information she had? She didn't have the info that W had. That's a fact. He had all the info. He lied. She believed his lie. Who is the problem?

Weird people think Hillary Clinton is responsible for invading Iraq.

I guess the question is, how do you know what she didn't have? She was in a sham marriage with the ex-president do you think he knew anything? Don't you think if he knew there were not WMD he might have said something or she? But she was enthusiastic about taking out the Butcher of Baghdad. IF she didn't know, she should have known.

Here is an article that gives pro and con about the access of information. I provide you with the last paragraph on the con side:

The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate [NIE] about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary."

Did Congress have the same intelligence information as the White House prior to the October 2002 congressional vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq? - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org