Republican Traitors Declare War on the American People

[Truthmatters]

did they find any weapons, you know ones that could make those mushroom clouds like Cheney claimed?

They lied to us you fool

 

[Avatar4321]

did they find any weapons, you know ones that could make those mushroom clouds like Cheney claimed?

They lied to us you fool

Yes. They found weapons. They just werent of the caliber and stock expected.

The biggest lie there was is that "no" weapons were found at all.

Heck, even Saddam's propaganda administer was admitting their were weapons.

 

[The T]

did they find any weapons, you know ones that could make those mushroom clouds like Cheney claimed?

They lied to us you fool

Yes. They found weapons. They just werent of the caliber and stock expected.

The biggest lie there was is that "no" weapons were found at all.

Heck, even Saddam's propaganda administer was admitting their were weapons.

Yep. They went to Syria before we attacked.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yep. They went to Syria before we attacked.

Quite possible. I mean there was enough delays on us going in to give them plenty of time.

Ive never understood why the left harped on the "no weapons" when we know that's false and when it made Bush look alot worse that he didnt find those weapons.

I guess in their mind having a President who lies is worse than one who can't do his job.

 

[Bfgrn]

Actually the truth here is that all Republicans hate war, especially those of us who have been there. Have you checked the status of the military lately? You will be surprised...

REALLY Ollie? Where were all these Republicans who hate war when Bush and Cheney lied us into a 3 trillion dollar war in Iraq?

Ah yes, they lied...... Show us the lie........ Show us that nearly every Security agency in the world didn't agree that Saddam had WMD. Show us how Saddam never admitted that he wanted Iran to believe he had WMD. read the Duelfer report and show us where Saddam wasn't planning on rebuilding his arsenal as fast as he could....

This is all out there as fact not made up hatred and lies... All you have to do is wade through the BS and read the truth....

Such tools...........

Ah Ollie, Bush's lies started before he was elected. Candidate Bush criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

Bush never told the American people he INTENDED to invade Iraq and START a war, now did he Ollie?

BUT...his first Treasury Secretary DID tell us...


Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq - CBS News

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

 

[Truthmatters]

How many mushroom cloud makers did they find in Iraq?

 

[Truthmatters]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egqqCYSfV2k&feature=related]Bush, Cheney, PNAC, & The Criminal Conspiracy To Invade Iraq - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr.Nick]

War hasn't been declared since WWII.

Actually Korea.....

We still are at war with North Korea....

 

[The T]

War hasn't been declared since WWII.

Actually Korea.....

We still are at war with North Korea....

Yes we are. Just not actively.

 

[Truthmatters]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4RZO8y-R9k]WMD Lies - (Bush Administration) George W. Bush and his Lying Friends - YouTube[/ame]

they lied

 

[The T]

Yep. They went to Syria before we attacked.

Quite possible. I mean there was enough delays on us going in to give them plenty of time.

Ive never understood why the left harped on the "no weapons" when we know that's false and when it made Bush look alot worse that he didnt find those weapons.

I guess in their mind having a President who lies is worse than one who can't do his job.

Indeed. There is evidence that the Weapons went elsewhere to protect them as the Madman Saddam thought he could kick our butts...

Hell? Even the U.N. knew they were there and so did alot of the left like Clinton/Gore and varying leftist Legislators...

Why Bush didn't acknowledge it i am not privvy to, and never will be.

 

[Truthmatters]

cite the evidence

 

[Mr.Nick]

I love the progressive mindset.... There is always a war against them unless everyone gets free food, housing, health care, car, utilities, Ipad, Iphone, flat screen TV, furniture etc.....

How do you pay for all that free shit? oh yeah tax the "rich" at 100%, if their solution isn't retarded enough they have the fucking audacity to claim they're not really socialists.....

Progressives take ignorance to a new level.... I don't understand how people can be that fucking stupid and still function in life....

 

[Dot Com]

the wealthy must be coddled at all costs and who better to do it than the GObP?

 

[Mr.Nick]

War hasn't been declared since WWII.

Actually Korea.....

We still are at war with North Korea....

Yes we are. Just not actively.

Obviously, however IMO North Korea believes we are actively at war. That's why the DMZ is so funny.... It's almost like a chess game and it's our move .

 

[Lonestar_logic]

WMD Lies - (Bush Administration) George W. Bush and his Lying Friends - YouTube

they lied

Who is they?


Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.)
"According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons."

Congressional Record, October 9, 2002
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.)
"In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002
Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
"[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
"We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. ... [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. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Remarks at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, October 27, 2002
Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.)
"There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed, to quote President Bush directly."

Congressional Record , October 8, 2002
President 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."

Remarks at the Pentagon , February 17, 1998
"[L]et'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
Vice President Al Gore
"f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people."

Larry King Live, December 16, 1998
"Remember, Peter, this is a man who has used poison gas on his own people and on his neighbors repeatedly. He's trying to get ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. He could be a mass murderer of the first order of magnitude. We are not going to allow that to happen."

ABC News’ "Special Report,” December 16, 1998
"We know that [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his Country."

Remarks to the Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco, Calif., September 23, 2002
Secretary Of State Madelyn Albright
"Countering terror is one aspect of our struggle to maintain international security and peace. Limiting the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction is a second. Saddam Hussein's Iraq encompasses both of these challenges.”

Remarks at the American Legion Convention, New Orleans, La., August 9, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [America], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk 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. And it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm. In discussing Iraq, we begin by knowing that Saddam Hussein, unlike any other leader, has used weapons of mass destruction even against his own people."

CNN "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," February 18, 1998
Defense Secretary William Cohen
Cohen appeared on ABC’s "This Week” in 1997 to talk about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. To illustrate the danger, he brought a five-pound bag of sugar.

Cohen: It’s important when we talk about weapons of mass destruction that we translate that into something that the American people, and hopefully, the world community can understand. If you take a five pound bag of sugar and accept – call this anthrax (holding up a 5-pound bag of table sugar). This amount of anthrax could be spread over a city – let’s say the size of Washington. It could destroy at least half the population of that city. If you had even more amounts ...

One of the things we found with anthrax is that one breath and you are likely to face death within five days. One small particle of anthrax could produce death within five days.

VX is a nerve agent. One drop from this particular thimble as such – one single drop will kill you within a few minutes.

Cokie Roberts: Would you put that bag down please.

Cohen: Now I want to point out – I will spill it on the table – point out that he has had enormous amounts and I’d like to go to some of the lies that have been told about this, because originally, if we could look at this particular chart, the original declaration of Iraq, he said he had small quantities of nerve agent for research. We found almost four tons of VX – that little vial I just showed you – four tons of it.

"This Week” on ABC, November 16, 1997

 

[Mr.Nick]

the wealthy must be coddled at all costs and who better to do it than the GObP?

Who gives a shit about the "wealthy."

Anyone can get wealthy - progressives are just too fucking lazy and feel too entitled to do the hard work it takes to become wealthy, and to take the financial risks it takes to become wealthy..

 

[The T]

Actually Korea.....

We still are at war with North Korea....

Yes we are. Just not actively.

Obviously, however IMO North Korea believes we are actively at war. That's why the DMZ is so funny.... It's almost like a chess game and it's our move .

And they remind us by threatening to launch missles...

 

[SFC Ollie]

Iraq Survey Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh please, Wikipedia? Really? Read the damned report, all 1100 pages, I did because I wanted the truth. you just don't get it, and obviously don't want it.......

 

[SFC Ollie]

REALLY Ollie? Where were all these Republicans who hate war when Bush and Cheney lied us into a 3 trillion dollar war in Iraq?

Ah yes, they lied...... Show us the lie........ Show us that nearly every Security agency in the world didn't agree that Saddam had WMD. Show us how Saddam never admitted that he wanted Iran to believe he had WMD. read the Duelfer report and show us where Saddam wasn't planning on rebuilding his arsenal as fast as he could....

This is all out there as fact not made up hatred and lies... All you have to do is wade through the BS and read the truth....

Such tools...........

Ah Ollie, Bush's lies started before he was elected. Candidate Bush criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

Bush never told the American people he INTENDED to invade Iraq and START a war, now did he Ollie?

BUT...his first Treasury Secretary DID tell us...


Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq - CBS News

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

I guess that makes the policy set by the Iraqi Freedom act of 1998 null and void? You know when Clinton made it US Policy to make a Regime change in Iraq.....