Thanks Cut and Run Democrats

[ozzmdj]

"[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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

 

[jillian]

and how many years before bush invaded iraq was that, you freaking idiot?

 

[Vast LWC]

Oh, and one more question...

No offense, but if liberals are to be labeled as "Socialists", then wouldn't Libertarians be "Anarchists"?

 

[ozzmdj]

This is to easy kooks...............Proof that Saddam bankrolls terrorism: documents seized by Israel in raids against Palestinian Authority offices in the West Bank in recent months detail massive terror funding from the Iraqi dictator | Insight on the News | Find Articles at BNET

Still waiting

 

[Vast LWC]

"[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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

All of the comments you quote took place before the UN had a chance to go into Iraq and check for WMD's, providing the intel we needed to determine that there were none there.

And, as we know, there were none.

The difference? Bush went in knowing there were no WMDs. These comments were made on general intelligence data.

In addition, as they were made in 1998, 5 years before the invasion, it's quite possible that he DID have WMDs at that point, but had destroyed them by the time of the invasion.

 

[jillian]

This is to easy kooks...............Proof that Saddam bankrolls terrorism: documents seized by Israel in raids against Palestinian Authority offices in the West Bank in recent months detail massive terror funding from the Iraqi dictator | Insight on the News | Find Articles at BNET

Still waiting

what are you waiting for... the bush's good friends in the house of saud bankrolled terrorists too.... and run madrassas where they teach the good little children to be jihadi.

wanna go depose the saudi princes, mush-for-brains?

 

[ozzmdj]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIgiJAHwmSc&feature=PlayList&p=AAEBD34A9C7E0421&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3]YouTube - Devastating effects of chemical weapons in Iraq[/ame]

 

[Vast LWC]

YouTube - Devastating effects of chemical weapons in Iraq[/url]

Well, that looks pretty bad.

Do you have similar footage showing all the burned and blown apart bodies from the invasion of Iraq?

After all, fair is fair.

 

[ozzmdj]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDeeJGpNKAI&feature=PlayList&p=AAEBD34A9C7E0421&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2]YouTube - gas attack on halabja(kurdistan)[/ame]

 

[Vast LWC]

YouTube - gas attack on halabja(kurdistan)[/url]

Do you have footage of the hundreds of terror attacks against civilian targets that the Kurds mounted with US support during their civil war against Hussein?

Or the terror attacks they are currently conducting against Turkey?

 

[Vast LWC]

In fact, I would suggest you go and research Ansar al-Islam and the PUK, two KURDISH terrorists organizations.

The PUK is currently still conducting terrorist attacks in Turkey...

While Ansar al-Islam is closely tied to Al-Qaeda, and has been responsible for the second largest number of terrorist-type attacks on American and Iraqi targets in that region, right behind "Al-Qaeda in Iraq".

Hussein used WMDs on them, admittedly, which is an horrible thing to do.

But he did so because they were helping the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war at the time.

And the Iranians, if you remember, were using chemical weapons against Iraq as well.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

If Representatives based their votes on lies, doctored intelligence, etc ... then I think the limit of their own liability is that they failed to envision that those who lied were capable of lying. Congress doesn't have an independent intelligence agency as far as I know - at some point I think they have to trust the information they are given. If that information is wrong - then what resources do they have to determine that?
Was the information wrong through honest mistake? Was it wrong through deceitful manipulation?
I consider those crucial distinctions.

well I hope they dont get duped again with the healthcare bill.

Bush tricked them, must be smarter than he looks.

 

[EriktheRed]

You got your wish

shove it up your ass, dumbshit.

 

[EriktheRed]

Read and learn........American Thinker- Print Article

Oh and look at this. He applauds his own post linking to a wingnut site.

 

[Meister]

Show me where I have ever said that Obama owns the war? Show me one post where I have said that...if you can't, I will accept an apology. If you won't appologize then just STFU.

Show me one quote where I claimed you DID say Obama owns the war or the economy and I will provide apology. Otherwise YOU apologize or STFU!
if you are reffering to:

That's a question. If you can answer it without all the STFU crap - or claiming that I attempted to answer the question myself - that would be a lot more honest.

One thing you don't understand is that it is a recession, they come and go, and always have with our economy, it's a natural cycle in the market.

One thing YOU obviously don't understand is that I have posted MANY times that IMHO potus gets more credit than they deserve when the economy is rolling good and more blame than they deserve when the economy is poor. I believe that there are much bigger forces at work and have said so.

So tell you what - you stop making unfounded assumptions on what I "understand" and what I don't "understand", as well as what I have said and what I have not said and I will agree to do the same - WITHOUT all the STFU crap!

Don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I would be very interested in your response.

Response to what?

You made a lot of inferences of something that I said.
Is that the response you wanted from me?

 

[ozzmdj]

"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

 

[Vast LWC]

"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

OZZ, do you just have a list of talking points that you cut and paste from?

Seriously, your posts do not seem change as the debate moves on, they just repeat the same things without posing rebuttals to other's points.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Such patterns are very common to those suffering from dementia.

 

[Xenophon]

I would respecfully disagree. Bush Senior did in fact finish the job.

The primary mission of Desert Storm was to remove the Iraqi threat to surrounding nations, which he was quite successful at. Post-Desert Storm Iraq was effectively castrated militarily. The "No-Fly" Zone and international sanctions against Iraq had further weakened Saddam's ability to threaten his neighbors to next-to-nil, by the time the US invaded again.

The problem here is that condition could not be maintained forever.

The object of wars should be the defeat of an enemy and the removal of the government you are at war with.

The gulf war was flawed at concept as it laid the groundwork for what was to follow that three presidents have been unable to solve.

In short it was a fool's errand, if you are going to fight Saddam, then you remove him, otherwise you have to leave a huge army behind to police him.

That is what happened, and its what drove islamic anger for a decade that culminated in 9/11.

Now here, I agree. We shouldn't have been involved militarily to begin with in the Middle East. However, it is true that once we were engaged, we created more problems for ourselves that forced us to go into afghanistan.

reagan leared the hardway not to move US forces into the middleast.

Bush senior did not learn that lesson, Clinton was not going to change things as it worked for him politically (he could always be strong on defense by a bombing of Iraq) and he knew it would be unpopular in Congress.

Bush jr was the one that thought he could solve it by force and we all know how that turned out.

Better off as opposed to what?

Better off than if they had a peaceful transition to a new government? Almost certainly.

However, what they got is a war that will have caused, either directly or indirectly, close to a million deaths. Some through violence, some through lack of infrastructure, some through disease that would not otherwise have occurred, etc, etc.

Even during the most violent periods of the civil war the Kurds were fighting against him, Hussein never came close to killing a tenth of that number.

Oh sure, Hussein was an evil dictator, but he was no Hitler.

So the question is: "Was it worth hundreds of thousands of people dead to get rid of one, rather weak, dictator?"

Neither you nor I know the answer to that, we'd have to ask the Iraqis.

I believe it was not, as with Bush I, Bush II did not fight a total war and as a result the USA has been subjected to the old Asian 'death of a thousand cuts' so famous to islam in history.

Agree with all, but would add that Bush had separate motives involved control of oil production, and that Mr Bush lied to the American people in order to make the war happen.

In addition, Bush's mistakes began well before Jay Gardner, and continued until well after Bremer.

Petraeus did his job quite well, but everything he did was only a temporary measure. There is no way the US could have kept troops in Iraq to police the country indefinitely. Talk about a waste of lives and resources, that would have been a disaster in the long term. Yet another disaster, that is.

Whether he did or not I can't say, I can only view the results.

But now I see... you're a pure libertarian, aren't you?

Just out of curiosity, and not that it's any of my business, but did you vote libertarian in the last election?

I reject all parties, including libertarians.

I'm simply an American, I believe what i believe in and find I cannot join this group or that group as nobody will feel the exactly the same as I do on all things.

I'm more of an opposer to the party system then a supporter of anyone.

But I can tell you i have NEVER voted for a Bush or a Clinton or an Obama or anyone else from the big two, i supported Ross Perot in the 90s because he was talking my language, attack the deficiet and make America live within its means.

 

[ozzmdj]

The gulf war was flawed at concept as it laid the groundwork for what was to follow that three presidents have been unable to solve.

In all due respect THREE Presidents? A permanent basic needs to be installed in Iraq just like South Korea, Germany and Japan.