Liberal Fascism on Display

[Ame®icano]

Speak English, Fausto.

Whats the problem sissy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Speak English, Fausto.

Whats the problem sissy?

State your point.

 

[Dad2three]

The Left has had nothing to say about the wholesale slaughter of Christians in the Middle East, except to cry and lecture people about how "That isnt Islam"


idiots and hypocrites

I think GW Bush sent more Christians to their deaths in his unnecessary war in Iraq. American Christians. In uniform.

Ohhhhh,,,,so you require a remedial!

"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 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 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 Sens. 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.



"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

"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

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

THEY invade Iraq, ON A CASE BUILT ON FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES??? lol

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When it comes to intolerance, conservatives live in a very large glass house, they'd be wise to put down the stones.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Left has had nothing to say about the wholesale slaughter of Christians in the Middle East, except to cry and lecture people about how "That isnt Islam"


idiots and hypocrites

I think GW Bush sent more Christians to their deaths in his unnecessary war in Iraq. American Christians. In uniform.

Ohhhhh,,,,so you require a remedial!

"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 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 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 Sens. 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.



"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

"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

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

THEY invade Iraq, ON A CASE BUILT ON FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES??? lol

So.....did you vote for any of those quoted in the post?


Why?

 

[JakeStarkey]

We know that PC has been lambasted by true conservatives in her own thread.

Good on them.

 

[Dad2three]

The Left has had nothing to say about the wholesale slaughter of Christians in the Middle East, except to cry and lecture people about how "That isnt Islam"


idiots and hypocrites

I think GW Bush sent more Christians to their deaths in his unnecessary war in Iraq. American Christians. In uniform.

Ohhhhh,,,,so you require a remedial!

"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 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 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 Sens. 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.



"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

"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

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

THEY invade Iraq, ON A CASE BUILT ON FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES??? lol

So.....did you vote for any of those quoted in the post?


Why?

You mean you want to take the quotes out of context on the illegal invasion of Iraq by Dubya on false premises?

Why?


HINT: SABER RATTLING!

-

 

[Debra K]

When it comes to intolerance, conservatives live in a very large glass house, they'd be wise to put down the stones.

I was just thinking that same thing!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Left has had nothing to say about the wholesale slaughter of Christians in the Middle East, except to cry and lecture people about how "That isnt Islam"


idiots and hypocrites

I think GW Bush sent more Christians to their deaths in his unnecessary war in Iraq. American Christians. In uniform.

Ohhhhh,,,,so you require a remedial!

"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 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 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 Sens. 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.



"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

"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

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

THEY invade Iraq, ON A CASE BUILT ON FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES??? lol

So.....did you vote for any of those quoted in the post?


Why?

You mean you want to take the quotes out of context on the illegal invasion of Iraq by Dubya on false premises?

Why?


HINT: SABER RATTLING!

-

Why won't you answer the question?

So.....did you vote for any of those quoted in the post?


Why?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Why won't you answer the question? So.....did you vote for any of those quoted in the post?" Why?" Because you are creating a false context with your quotes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hmmmmm......Daddy3IQ seems to have run and hidden when asked if he voted for Democrats who agreed with President Bush on Iraq....

Let's apply a bit of that element that Liberals have in such short supply...... logic.


1. If Daddy3IQ hadn't voted for the Democrats, all of whom supported the same claims that Bush made about Iraq...he would have gleefully stated so.

2. Now...here Daddy3IQ is posting "THEY invade Iraq, ON A CASE BUILT ON FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES??"

Gads....he must have voted based on the same 'FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES."

3. So, Daddy3IQ, you voted for, supported folks with the very same positions.




Here's the Bard laughing at you: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks'

 

[JakeStarkey]

Having trouble with accurate quotations again, PC?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So...

...what's the over/under on how many days before the OP starts this same thread over again?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hmmmmm......Daddy3IQ seems to have run and hidden when asked if he voted for Democrats who agreed with President Bush on Iraq....

Let's apply a bit of that element that Liberals have in such short supply...... logic.


1. If Daddy3IQ hadn't voted for the Democrats, all of whom supported the same claims that Bush made about Iraq...he would have gleefully stated so.

2. Now...here Daddy3IQ is posting "THEY invade Iraq, ON A CASE BUILT ON FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES??"

Gads....he must have voted based on the same 'FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES."

3. So, Daddy3IQ, you voted for, supported folks with the very same positions.




Here's the Bard laughing at you: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks'

Most Democrats voted against the Iraq war authorization.

 

[playtime]

For his 'own good,' Ambrosino must be punished....so saith the Liberal fascists.

Free Speech Under Fire: The ACLU Challenge to "Protest Zones"

Fact Sheet

WASHINGTON - In many cities across the country, the Secret Service has discriminated against protesters during Presidential and Vice Presidential appearances. Such incidents have spiked under the Bush Administration, prompting the ACLU to charge government officials with a ""pattern and practice"" of discrimination against those who disagree with its policies.

Following is just a partial list of incidents from around the nation. In some cases, the ACLU is representing the individuals or groups involved. But because these cases are too numerous to litigate individually, the ACLU has asked a federal court for a nationwide injunction barring the Secret Service from directing local police to restrict protesters' access to appearances by President Bush and other senior Administration officials.

The ACLU has also documented incidents of government crackdowns on dissent in many forms in a report, Freedom Under Fire: Dissent in Post-9/11 America, available online at /cpredirect/17281

Phoenix, Arizona
On September 27, 2002, President Bush came to the downtown Civic Center for a fund-raising dinner for two local candidates. A coalition of groups opposed to a variety of the President's policies, consisting of approximately 1,500 people, negotiated with the local police for a demonstration permit. Phoenix police advised the protesters that the President had requested a federal protection zone. These protesters were required to stand across the street from the Civic Center. People carrying signs supporting the President's policies and spectators not visibly expressing any views were allowed to stand closer. Eleanor Eisenberg, director of the local ACLU, was present as a legal observer. When mounted police in riot gear charged into the crowd without warning, Eisenberg, who was across the street taking photos, was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. The charges were later dropped.

Stockton, California
On August 23, 2002, at an appearance in a local park to support a Republican gubernatorial candidate, protesters were ordered behind a row of large, Greyhound-sized buses, which placed them out of sight and earshot of their intended audience. They were advised that if they went to the other side of the buses, a location visible to those attending the event, they would be arrested. People who carried signs supporting the President's policies and spectators not visibly expressing any views were allowed to gather in front of the buses, where event attendees could see them. Local police told the protesters that the decision to force them behind the buses had been made by the Secret Service.

Evansville, Indiana

On February 6, 2002, Vice President Cheney was scheduled to appear at the local Civic Center. John Blair, a local activist, walked back and forth on the sidewalk across the street from the Civic Center carrying a sign reading "Cheney - 19th C. Energy Man." When Blair stopped walking, he was ordered to move to a "protest zone" more than a block away from the Civic Center. When he refused to do so, he was arrested. Spectators or passers-by who did not express any views about the Vice President's policies were allowed to walk on the sidewalk in front of the Civic Center. Blair, represented by the ACLU, successfully challenged the arrest. But the lawsuit remains in force because the city has refused to acknowledge that it had no right to ignore Blair's constitutional rights.

Kalamazoo, Michigan
At President Bush's appearance at Western Michigan University on March 27, 2001, a protester was carrying a sign sarcastically commenting on the prior Presidential election ("Welcome Governor Bush"). A Western Michigan policeman ordered him to go to a "protest zone" behind an athletic building located 150-200 yards from the parade route. After the protestor was ordered to move, several hundred people who were not carrying signs congregated in the area where the lone protester had stood and were allowed to remain there. The protest zone was located so that people sent there could not be seen by the President or his motorcade. When the protester refused to enter the protest zone, but insisted on standing where other people had been allowed to gather, he was arrested. Local police testified at his trial that the decisions had been made by the Secret Service.

St. Louis, Missouri
On November 4, 2002, one day before Election Day, the President came to the St. Charles Family Arena. Two protesters carrying signs critical of the President's policy on Iraq were ordered into a "protest zone" approximately one-quarter mile away, a location completely out of sight of the building. When the protesters refused, they were arrested. Meanwhile, protesters carrying signs supporting Republican candidates in the election were not ordered into the protest zone, were allowed closer to the President, and were not arrested.

On January 22, 2003, President Bush came to town to announce an economic plan. Protesters carrying signs opposing the economic plan and criticizing the President's foreign policy were sent to a "protest zone" located in a public park, three blocks away and down an embankment from where the President was speaking. Neither people attending the event nor people in the motorcade could see the protesters in the protest zone. One protester was arrested for refusing to enter the protest zone. Standing near the location where the protester was arrested was a group of people who were not asked to move, including a woman who carried a sign reading, "We Love You President Bush." She was neither ordered into the protest zone nor arrested. Local police told the arrested protester that they were acting at the direction of the Secret Service.

Trenton, New Jersey
On September 22, 2002, the President arrived to speak at a fundraiser for a U.S. Representative at the Sovereign Bank Arena. There were 200-300 protesters who sought to protest around issues such as the war in Iraq and prescription drug policies. They were told that they had to go to a protest zone that was set up in Parking Lot 5 of the arena, which is on the other side of a double-divided four-lane highway with barricades in the middle and high wire on both sides. Some of the protesters walked around to the front of the arena where they observed pro-Bush demonstrators standing. Protesters were told that the local police had to consult the Secret Service about the location of the protest zone.

Albuquerque, New Mexico
On April 29, 2002, the President came to a somewhat isolated hotel in town to attend a fund-raising luncheon for a local member of Congress. Protesters opposed to the policies of the President, many carrying signs opposing the anticipated war in Iraq, were sent to a "protest zone" across the street from the hotel where the President was speaking. People who supported the policies of the President were allowed to be closer to the hotel. Other people were allowed free access to the hotel.

Neville Island, Pennsylvania

On September 2, 2002, protesters were sent to a "designated free speech zone" located on a large baseball field located one-third of a mile away from where President Bush was speaking. Only people carrying signs critical of the President were required to enter and remain. Many people carrying signs supporting the President and his policies were allowed to stand alongside the motorcade route right up to where the President was speaking. But when retired steelworker Bill Neel refused to enter the protest zone and insisted on being allowed to stand where the President's supporters were standing, he was arrested for disorderly conduct and detained until the President had departed. The ACLU of Greater Pittsburgh represented Neel and had all charges against him dismissed. Local police testified at his trial that the security policies, including the protest zone location, were dictated by the Secret Service.

Columbia, South Carolina
On October 24, 2002, the President was scheduled to arrive at the Columbia airport. One protester, Brett Bursey, was carrying a sign opposed to the policies of the President two hundred yards from the hangar where the President's plane was to arrive. He was ordered to a protest zone over a half-mile from that location. Several hundred protesters with signs that supported the policies of the President were allowed to stand closer to the hangar. When Bursey insisted on being allowed to remain where other members of the public stood, he was arrested on state and federal criminal charges. In May 2003, a group of 11 Congressmen urged Attorney General Ashcroft to drop the charges, saying that the government's prosecution of Bursey was a mistake "and is in fact a threat to the freedom of expression we should all be defending." To read the letter, go to http://www.house.gov/frank/scprotester2003.html

Houston, Texas
In September 2002, the President came to the Hyatt Regency Hotel to speak on behalf of a local Congressional representative running for the U.S. Senate. Approximately 300 people marched from city hall to a designated "protest zone" in a plaza near the hotel. The plaza was up a one-way street and could only be seen from the hotel entrance at a severe angle. The plaza was not on the President's motorcade route and could not be seen by individuals entering the hotel to attend the President's speech. Individuals not expressing a viewpoint were allowed to walk on the sidewalk in front of the hotel.

Richmond, Virginia
On June 23, 2003, the Vice President came to a fundraiser at the Jefferson Hotel. The approximately 100 protesters opposing the policies of the President were required to go across Franklin Avenue from the hotel. Spectators not visibly expressing any views were allowed to walk on the sidewalk in front of the hotel.

Washington, D.C.
On June 17, 2003, the President spoke at the Hilton Hotel. Protesters from the Children's Defense Fund criticizing the President's policies were picketing on the north side of T Street, adjacent to the hotel. A Secret Service agent, who showed them his badge, directed the protesters across the street. Spectators not visibly expressing any views were allowed to walk on the sidewalk in front of the hotel.

Free Speech Under Fire: The ACLU Challenge to "Protest Zones"

Protesters Arrested for Anti-Bush T-Shirts Win Settlement

Matthew Rothschild Nicole and Jeff Rank were arrested on Independence Day, 2004, for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts. They were on the grounds of the capitol in Charleston, West Virginia, where Bush was giving a speech. Amidst others who were wearing pro-Bush shirts, the Ranks were wearing shirts with Bush's name having a line through it. On the back of one of their shirts was: "Love America, Hate Bush." They were singled out by White House event staff and local law enforcement, who told them they would have to leave. When they didn't, they were arrested for trespassing. The city of Charleston, in a matter of days, realized its error and apologized to the Ranks. But feeling that the White House was behind their arrest, they, with the help of the ACLU, sued the then-head of the Office of White House Advance. In the process of the lawsuit, they uncovered a White House manual that gave instructions on how to handle protesters. (See "White House Manual for Silencing Critics".) This manual says: "As always, work with the Secret Service and have them ask the local police department to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route." The document also recommends drowning out protesters or blocking their signs by using what it calls "rally squads." It states: "These squads should be instructed always to look for demonstrators. The rally squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform. If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protestors (USA!, USA!, USA!). As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site." The document also offers advice on how to recruit members for such squads: "The rally squads can include, but are not limited to, college/young republican organizations, local athletic teams, and fraternities/sororities." On August 16, the ACLU announced that a settlement had been reached, with the government agreeing to pay the Ranks $80,000 to make the case go away. "This settlement is a real victory not only for our clients but for the First Amendment," said Andrew Schneider, executive director of the ACLU of West Virginia. "As a result of the Ranks' courageous stand, public officials will think twice before they eject peaceful protesters from public events for exercising their right to dissent." -

See more at: Protesters Arrested for Anti-Bush T-Shirts Win Settlement | The Progressive

Ten years after, Bush protesters lose free speech case
Richard Wolf, USA TODAY 11:35 a.m. EDT May 27, 2014

Ten years after, Bush protesters lose free speech case

So, I guess you are quite mistaken 'eh... it's NOT just a liberal thang....

 

[Dad2three]

The Left has had nothing to say about the wholesale slaughter of Christians in the Middle East, except to cry and lecture people about how "That isnt Islam"


idiots and hypocrites

I think GW Bush sent more Christians to their deaths in his unnecessary war in Iraq. American Christians. In uniform.

Ohhhhh,,,,so you require a remedial!

"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 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 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 Sens. 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.



"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

"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

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

THEY invade Iraq, ON A CASE BUILT ON FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES??? lol

So.....did you vote for any of those quoted in the post?


Why?

I get it Bubbette, CONServatives want to have simply answers to complex issues

Iraq's quotes YOU want to use by the Dems, WERE either taken out of context of the time and what was happening, or were deliberately being mislead by Dubya/Cheney to lead US into war based on false premises

WHY?




The Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence (formally, the "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq") was the report by the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concerning the U.S. intelligence community's assessments of Iraq during the time leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The report, which was released on July 9, 2004, identified numerous failures in the intelligence-gathering and -analysis process. The report found that these failures led to the creation of inaccurate materials that misled both government policy makers and the American public.

The Committee's Republican majority and Democratic minority agreed on the report's major conclusions and unanimously endorsed its findings



Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

Hmmmmm......Daddy3IQ seems to have run and hidden when asked if he voted for Democrats who agreed with President Bush on Iraq....

Let's apply a bit of that element that Liberals have in such short supply...... logic.


1. If Daddy3IQ hadn't voted for the Democrats, all of whom supported the same claims that Bush made about Iraq...he would have gleefully stated so.

2. Now...here Daddy3IQ is posting "THEY invade Iraq, ON A CASE BUILT ON FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES??"

Gads....he must have voted based on the same 'FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES."

3. So, Daddy3IQ, you voted for, supported folks with the very same positions.




Here's the Bard laughing at you: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks'

Bush misused Iraq intelligence - US Senate report

U.S. President George W. Bush and his top policymakers misstated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism and ignored doubts among intelligence agencies about Iraq's arms programs as they made a case for war, the Senate intelligence committee reported on Thursday.

The report shows an administration that "led the nation to war on false premises,"


....PUBLIC CAMPAIGN

The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration's main cases for war -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was spreading them to terrorists -- were inaccurate and deeply flawed.

"The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (Sept. 11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,"

Bush misused Iraq intelligence - US Senate report

 

[Debra K]

Hmmmmm......Daddy3IQ seems to have run and hidden when asked if he voted for Democrats who agreed with President Bush on Iraq....

Let's apply a bit of that element that Liberals have in such short supply...... logic.


1. If Daddy3IQ hadn't voted for the Democrats, all of whom supported the same claims that Bush made about Iraq...he would have gleefully stated so.

2. Now...here Daddy3IQ is posting "THEY invade Iraq, ON A CASE BUILT ON FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES??"

Gads....he must have voted based on the same 'FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES."

3. So, Daddy3IQ, you voted for, supported folks with the very same positions.




Here's the Bard laughing at you: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks'

PoliticalChic: Your argument is based on fallacious reasoning. There are numerous websites that discuss fallacies. Perhaps you should review a few. But thank you again for the entertainment value you provide.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hmmmmm......Daddy3IQ seems to have run and hidden when asked if he voted for Democrats who agreed with President Bush on Iraq....

Let's apply a bit of that element that Liberals have in such short supply...... logic.


1. If Daddy3IQ hadn't voted for the Democrats, all of whom supported the same claims that Bush made about Iraq...he would have gleefully stated so.

2. Now...here Daddy3IQ is posting "THEY invade Iraq, ON A CASE BUILT ON FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES??"

Gads....he must have voted based on the same 'FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES."

3. So, Daddy3IQ, you voted for, supported folks with the very same positions.




Here's the Bard laughing at you: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks'

Bush misused Iraq intelligence - US Senate report

U.S. President George W. Bush and his top policymakers misstated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism and ignored doubts among intelligence agencies about Iraq's arms programs as they made a case for war, the Senate intelligence committee reported on Thursday.

The report shows an administration that "led the nation to war on false premises,"


....PUBLIC CAMPAIGN

The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration's main cases for war -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was spreading them to terrorists -- were inaccurate and deeply flawed.

"The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (Sept. 11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,"

Bush misused Iraq intelligence - US Senate report

You can run but you can't hide.


You voted for folks with exactly the same beliefs about Iraq.

 

[Debra K]

So...

...what's the over/under on how many days before the OP starts this same thread over again?

Hasn't she already? ROFL

But back to the content of her posts, her only message is "conservatives good; liberals bad". She is not swayed by verifiable facts or logical arguments to the contrary. She ignores those things like the plague and proclaims herself the winner of every debate she evaded.