Dems Give Terrorists Reason To Fight On

[Alucard]

You're right damn it!

We should impeach Bill Clinton!

Oh wait....that's already been taken care of.

Get over it Alucard.

I'm not making false accusations and insinuating they are facts... you are.

Liberals twist the truth to fit their needs or just lie outright and call it a fact...
That is one of the big differences between libs and conservatives. liberals are perpetual liars and conservatives are inherently honest.

 

[Rosotar]

Please support your allegation that Bush lied with unbiased, corroborated FACT. Hint: If there was any, he'd have already been impeached.

http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.html

If you think there was ever a chance that Bush's Republican lapdogs would have ever even asked him a difficult question, much less impeached him I've still got that bridge for sale!

We're hearing a little more of the "I" word lately and look how the cons squeal like stuck pigs every time it is mentioned.

Wait until his Republican imposed deadline in Iraq passes in September. The Republican rats have already told him they're jumping ship after that.

With a couple dozen of them on the Dems side then impeachment will be a real option.

 

[red states rule]

Nope.

Just the Bush administration.

Besides, even if Dems were just as guilty of "lying" as Bush is does that absolve him of responsibility?

He is the so called "leader" of the free world!

So now Dems lied to?

Remember during the Clinton years libs dismissed Bill's actions by saying everybody did it

So which is it?

Did Dems lie as well? Or were they only mistaken?

 

[maineman]

how come you get to continually pepper your posts with questions of others when you NEVER answer questions posed to you?

 

[Rosotar]

So now Dems lied to?

Remember during the Clinton years libs dismissed Bill's actions by saying everybody did it

So which is it?

Did Dems lie as well? Or were they only mistaken?

This "bait and switch" game of distraction is very common when cons get backed into a corner about Bush's lack of honesty.

Deflect the debate from legitimate questions about Bush to the librul media or just BLAME THE CLINTUNS!!!

Bush lied rsr.

If you check the record you'll find that all the intelligence info that Dems have used in the past to cite proof of Saddam's weapons was already obsolete by the time Bush & Co. started building their case for war. Bush knew the info was obsolete yet he used it anyway rather than the more current info which said the old info was not correct.

Even if your definition of a lie is just like Bill Clinton's definition of sex rsr, you'll have a hard time maintaining that Bush did not LIE in order to start his war.

 

[red states rule]

This "bait and switch" game of distraction is very common when cons get backed into a corner about Bush's lack of honesty.

Deflect the debate from legitimate questions about Bush to the librul media or just BLAME THE CLINTUNS!!!

Bush lied rsr.

If you check the record you'll find that all the intelligence info that Dems have used in the past to cite proof of Saddam's weapons was already obsolete by the time Bush & Co. started building their case for war. Bush knew the info was obsolete yet he used it anyway rather than the more current info which said the old info was not correct.

Even if your definition of a lie is just like Bill Clinton's definition of sex rsr, you'll have a hard time maintaining that Bush did not LIE in order to start his war.

If Bush lied so did Bill Clinton

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now — a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

"[Let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too." Remarks at the Pentagon, February 17, 1998

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." Remarks at the White House, December 16, 1998

 

[Care4all]

If Bush lied so did Bill Clinton

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now — a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

"[Let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too." Remarks at the Pentagon, February 17, 1998

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." Remarks at the White House, December 16, 1998

Geez RSR, WHY do YOU think that Bill Clinton, after all of those statements, NEVER TOOK US IN TO A FULL FLEDGE WAR over them? huh....

This was back in 98, WHY DIDN'T the republican Congress declare war against Saddam and Iraq back then....? Guess Saddam WAS NOT as dangerous to us as the BARK that was put out, was he?

I am so GREATFUL that Clinton and the Republicans in Congress back then KNEW saddam was not an imminent threat to us...and did NOT declare War against Iraq.

And one more thing..... Intelligence that is older than a year old, IS NO LONGER INTELLIGENCE.....

you don't go in to a full fledge war on 5 year old INTEL do you?

Care

 

[red states rule]

The point is, Dems have been saying Pres Bush lied when the US went to war with Iraq

So if Bush lied so did all the Dems - including most of the Clinton administration - and Bill Clinton

 

[maineman]

what prior administrations may have said is not the point. one administration said things and used those statements as a means to gain public support for a war that they initiated.

 

[red states rule]

what prior administrations may have said is not the point. one administration said things and used those statements as a means to gain public support for a war that they initiated.

So Bill and his entire administration was lying?

 

[maineman]

So Bill and his entire administration was lying?

I know of no statements by the Clinton administration that expressed absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's....but if anyone in the Clinton administration DID make such a statement, it was a lie, in that it tended to create a false impression.

but again....Clinton did not invade Iraq. Clinton did not invade Iraq after first gaining public support for such an invasion by creating false impressions.

 

[red states rule]

I know of no statements by the Clinton administration that expressed absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's....but if anyone in the Clinton administration DID make such a statement, it was a lie, in that it tended to create a false impression.

but again....Clinton did not invade Iraq. Clinton did not invade Iraq after first gaining public support for such an invasion by creating false impressions.

Try reading what the Dems said

Bill did not take out Saddam because their was no political gain to be had

 

[maineman]

Try reading what the Dems said

Bill did not take out Saddam because their was no political gain to be had

I did read what the democrats said and none of them expressed absolute certainty.

And your thoughts on Clinton's motives for NOT invading Iraq are really irrelevant to the fact that Bush did invade Iraq and he did so by first lying to the American people to garner their support.

 

[red states rule]

I did read what the democrats said and none of them expressed absolute certainty.

And your thoughts on Clinton's motives for NOT invading Iraq are really irrelevant to the fact that Bush did invade Iraq and he did so by first lying to the American people to garner their support.

Its quite amazing the Democratic party base is capable of turning on a dime, if a democrat doesn’t speak perfectly its ignored, if a Republican makes an error, and they don’t recognize that as prefect he’s a moron.

You’re not going to get any solid truthful reasoning out of them, I’ve been drilling for it for 25 years now, its not there to be found. All they have is a collation of their own lies, and general objectives.

 

[maineman]

Its quite amazing the Democratic party base is capable of turning on a dime, if a democrat doesn’t speak perfectly its ignored, if a Republican makes an error, and they don’t recognize that as prefect he’s a moron.

You’re not going to get any solid truthful reasoning out of them, I’ve been drilling for it for 25 years now, its not there to be found. All they have is a collation of their own lies, and general objectives.

I have not ignored anything.... and please address my comments and quit ranting about your democratic hate that has been brewing for a quarter of a century.

Address the issues that I have brought up.

 

[red states rule]

I have not ignored anything.... and please address my comments and quit ranting about your democratic hate that has been brewing for a quarter of a century.

Address the issues that I have brought up.

Ah, back to changing the subject once again?

It is fun to watch Dems try and excuse their own for saying the same things about Saddam and WMD's as Pres Bush

 

[maineman]

Ah, back to changing the subject once again?

It is fun to watch Dems try and excuse their own for saying the same things about Saddam and WMD's as Pres Bush

no change of subject whatsoever. And again... democrats did NOT express absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's.... and democrats did not invade Iraq after misleading the AMerican people about those stockpiles.

 

[red states rule]

“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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources—something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.”—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.”—Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002.

 

[maineman]

“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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources—something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.”—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.”—Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002.

No statements of absolute certainty in any of those quotes. try again....

but please...understand that it really is not about who else might have lied.. Bush is our leader...he did lie and he did take us to war on the backs of those lies. the buck stops there.

 

[red states rule]

Poor MM...

Hard times for the the blind followers of the Democrat party