The NY Times ,Clinton's 1998 Iraq Liberation Act & 3,168,000 Iraqi children agree: There were WMDs!

[healthmyths]

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."

Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia


Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.

Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!

If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.

By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?

 

[AntonToo]

Year is 2017, this thing is long settled buddy. Time to move on at some point.

Pre-emptive WMD arguments for Iraq invasion were a complete bust as Bush himself long ago acknowledged. Saddam was bluffing to keep his neighbors in check, did not actually have an advanced nuclear program the war was sold on.

 

[washamericom]

ask the soldiers that got burned thru their boots if there were chemicals.

 

[AntonToo]

ask the soldiers that got burned thru their boots if there were chemicals.

I did, they said Saddam abandoned nuclear program development a decade before invasion. They got burned with buried old left overs from the chemical program.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

How many children have died as a result of ISIS which exist because Bush II removed Saddam. How many children are dying in Rwanda yet they do not have oil so we didnt invade them to save the children.

 

[tigerred59]

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."

Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia


Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.

Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!

If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.

By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?

I have to hand it to you squirrel eating nuts, you people cling to shit and stay on shit, like a orange shade of monkey piss on Trump.... and you do know that Elvis and Reagan are dead, yes?

 

[Tehon]

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."

Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia


Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.

Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!

If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.

By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?

It's all part of the same big lie. The neocons found a sympathetic ear in Clinton. In Bush they found an accomplice.

 

[Penelope]

Israel wanted him out. Clinton did what he was told to do at that time to escape impeachment.

 

[healthmyths]

Year is 2017, this thing is long settled buddy. Time to move on at some point.

Pre-emptive WMD arguments for Iraq invasion were a complete bust as Bush himself long ago acknowledged. Saddam was bluffing to keep his neighbors in check, did not actually have an advanced nuclear program the war was sold on.

Doesn't alter FACT!
YES! Saddam was bluffing but Saddam denied allowing children to starve.
Bush calling his bluff saved 3 million kids from starvation! You don't think that was worth it?

 

[healthmyths]

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."

Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia


Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.

Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!

If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.

By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?

It's all part of the same big lie. The neocons found a sympathetic ear in Clinton. In Bush they found an accomplice.

So you believe children didn't starve because Saddam didn't care and bluffed about WMDs and the NYT lied?

 

[healthmyths]

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."

Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia


Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.

Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!

If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.

By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?

I have to hand it to you squirrel eating nuts, you people cling to shit and stay on shit, like a orange shade of monkey piss on Trump.... and you do know that Elvis and Reagan are dead, yes?

Doesn't alter the NYT article. Doesn't alter that nearly 3.6 million kids would have starved if Saddam still in power.
Where in what I wrote above was there any falsehoods? NYT reports children starved because Saddam wouldn't admit there WERE NO WMDs.
If he were bluffing no civilized person would then risk either way...i.e. if there are no WMDs then Saddam is a mass murderer and needs to be replaced OR
there were WMDs and any leader risking children starving would have no restraint in using WMDs. Those are the scenarios that were confronting civilized people.

 

[healthmyths]

How many children have died as a result of ISIS which exist because Bush II removed Saddam. How many children are dying in Rwanda yet they do not have oil so we didnt invade them to save the children.

Far fewer then the 3.6 million BUT the fact is Obama withdrew and let ISIS exist! NOT Bush! Bush listened to history.
Tell me why do we still have 140,000 troops in Europe/Asia 70 years after WWII? Please explain!

 

[healthmyths]

ask the soldiers that got burned thru their boots if there were chemicals.

I did, they said Saddam abandoned nuclear program development a decade before invasion. They got burned with buried old left overs from the chemical program.

Again though you and the masses of idiots seem to have 20/20 hindsight!
MY point was civilized people couldn't allow 3.6 million kids to starve...maybe you could.
But when Saddam allowed 576,000 kids to starve ALL BECAUSE HE WOULDN"T ADMIT there were NO WMDs what would any civilized person think?
Either
A) There are no WMDs and Saddam is murdering children therefore needs to be replaced
OR
B) There are WMDs and if Saddam would let 576,000 kids starve he did have and would have NO constraint on using them!

You tell me without the 20/20 hindsight what the f...k you'd do?

 

[Weatherman2020]

“The man needs to get rid of his chemical and biological weapons stocks,” Clinton said on February 6, 2003 as President Bush contemplated attacking Iraq.

Clinton listed a number of weapons that Saddam might have including anthrax, volunteering, “They may even have a little smallpox.” Clinton said that he was “pretty sure” that Saddam had the chemical agents VX and ricin.

“Sure,” Clinton said when King asked him point blank if he ever saw information as president that led him to believe that Saddam was making weapons.

 

[Faun]

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."

Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia


Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.

Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!

If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.

By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?

"the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t" ~ George Bush, mass murderer, 2006

 

[Weatherman2020]

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

CNN.com - Clinton defends successor's push for war - Jun 19, 2004

 

[Weatherman2020]

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."

Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia


Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.

Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!

If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.

By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?

"the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t" ~ George Bush, mass murderer, 2006

Calling Bill and Hillary liars, tsk tsk.

 

[Weatherman2020]

"The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War."
President Bill Clinton, Dec 16, 1998

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, 1998

 

[washamericom]

How many children have died as a result of ISIS which exist because Bush II removed Saddam. How many children are dying in Rwanda yet they do not have oil so we didnt invade them to save the children.

even liberals can't tell the future.

 

[healthmyths]

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."

Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia


Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.

Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!

If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.

By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?

"the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t" ~ George Bush, mass murderer, 2006

Calling Bill and Hillary liars, tsk tsk.

As well as these Democrats!! Who later became traitors and helped kill our troops in Iraq by encouraging the barbarians!

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path." Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 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." Madeleine 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.

"We 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.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"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 .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"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."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

BUT once GWB was President GUESS who Harvard University study showed...HELPED KILL OUR TROOPS in Iraq with statements like these!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"
The above quotes encouraging of the terrorists has shown by a Harvard study to have increased violence by 10%...
THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"