Democrats Perception Of Saddam/iraq Before Gwb...so Will They Do The Same With Isis??

[healthmyths]

"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD" Bill Clinton,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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 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: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001

Again ALL these Democrat statements BEFORE Bush was President... so how could Bush have lied if he was relying on Clinton's administration's Iraq/Saddam intelligence unless Clinton was the liar and that could never be right???

 

[eagle1462010]

Where the wind blows politically they will be........

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9824514

. Again ALL these Democrat statements BEFORE Bush was President... so how could Bush have lied if he was relying on Clinton's administration's Iraq/Saddam intelligence unless Clinton was the liar and that could never be right???

Bush was not lying in October 2002 and prior to that point in time. Bush was 100% correct to use the threat of military action to bring Iraq into compliance with international law with regard to Iraq's longstanding defiance of is disarmament obligations
i fully agreed with Bush prior to passage of UNSC Resolution 1441 in November 2002 which Bush had requested.

It is after 1441 that the Bush lies start and he ended up starting the dumbest war on record because there was non threat with UN inspectors on the ground and there was no humanitarian crisis within Iraq at the time the invasion began. The humanitarian crisis began after the invasion and foreign fighters terrorist went in for the first time.

What Bill Clinton said in 1998 had nothing to do with the stupid Bush decision to invade in March 2003. UN Resolution 1441 had passed and a working inspection and monitoring regime had been effectively set up. There was no excuse for killing people by the US in March 2003 and after that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lt's hope not, healthmyths, because GWB did misjudge SH, and we have paid hell ever since.

 

[healthmyths]

So the 1991 Cease Fire meant nothing? Why did we comply but Saddam didn't?
As far as "humanitarian crisis"??
By overthrowing Saddam in 2003 rather then him being in power today, nearly 2 million children were saved from starvation.
Because SADDAM is no longer in power.
And all Saddam had to do was certify he had destroyed WMDs!
Do you understand?
He stood by and let kids starve rather then ADMIT he had NO WMDs!

Which is why the embargo by the UN and dozens of nations was enforced...again because he wouldn't admit!
But idiots with 20/20 hindsight completely forget this!
THINK!!!
Why would a sane man allow 500,000 children to starve if he didn't have WMDs?

In five years 576,000 children starved BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - New York Times

Please explain how would you feel as President Bush did knowing any compassionate leader would not let one single citizen starve if all that was needed was to simply certify WMDs were destroyed?
Bush like all of us (maybe not you) can't comprehend why Saddam wouldn't certify if it meant children wouldn't starve. But for people like you that blame Bush.. consider this simple fact:
In five years at a rate of over 100,000 a year Saddam let 576,000 kids starve and if still in power today another 1.2 million would have starved. NONE of you Bush bashers consider that though!

Also NOT one of you Bush bashers EVER EVER criticize these statements made by Congressional representatives that were USED by the enemy to recruit more terrorists!
Why were these traitors allowed to continue to bash our military by making statements that totally validated the terrorists actions... i.e. "terrorists... the USA is no better then us and their Congressmen say so!!"
AND NOT ONE of you Bush Bashers or the complicit biased MEDIA attacked the below for their contributions to 4,000 more US Troops deaths simply by doing what this Harvard study asked:
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Do you think these were encouraging words to OUR military or to the terrorists?

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

With Americans like the above who needs terrorists as enemies???

 

[healthmyths]

Lt's hope not, healthmyths, because GWB did misjudge SH, and we have paid hell ever since.

YES...! YOU ARE RIGHT!!! Bush misjudged these people were Americans who would never put American soldiers lives in danger... BUT THE DID and in doing so prolonged for 6 more years what WAS done in 2003!

Also NOT one of you Bush bashers EVER EVER criticize these statements made by Congressional representatives that were USED by the enemy to recruit more terrorists!

Why were these traitors allowed to continue to bash our military by making statements that totally validated the terrorists actions... i.e. "terrorists... the USA is no better then us and their Congressmen say so!!"
AND NOT ONE of you Bush Bashers or the complicit biased MEDIA attacked the below for their contributions to 4,000 more US Troops deaths simply by doing what this Harvard study asked:
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Do you think these were encouraging words to OUR military or to the terrorists?

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

With Americans like the above who needs terrorists as enemies???

 

[JakeStarkey]

hm can no more prove his sstatements thn he could on health care costs.

He simply babbles.

Bush and his buddies got it wrong, completely, and that ruined the ME.

You neo-cons are not going to get another chance until we elect a GOP president and that does not seem likely ever again unless the party changes.

 

[healthmyths]

hm can no more prove his sstatements thn he could on health care costs.

He simply babbles.

Bush and his buddies got it wrong, completely, and that ruined the ME.

You neo-cons are not going to get another chance until we elect a GOP president and that does not seem likely ever again unless the party changes.

So you are calling these people liars?
This Harvard study asked:
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT
I bet they would appreciate you calling them "Liars"...because I didn't make anything up...

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am talking about the Bush massive, treansonous failures that have so embolden ISIS and its allies to defy humanity.

You, apparently, side with ISIS.

 

[healthmyths]

I am talking about the Bush massive, treansonous failures that have so embolden ISIS and its allies to defy humanity.

You, apparently, side with ISIS.

You know you have absolutely NO credibility when you make grossly UNSUBSTANTIATED, UNSOURCED
claims like "Bush massive treasonous failures" (especially when you ignore the spell checker...geez how dumb!)

Once and for all... explain how Bush's removal of a dictator that was starving 100,000 CHILDREN a year was a "treasonous failure"?
Once and for all explain how raising by 1,270% the Iraq's GDP was a "treasonous failure"?
Once and for all explain how in the eyes of the below:
-- Fedayeen Saddam member interviewed in The Sunday Times (London), April 20, 2003
Saddam has reduced his people to abject poverty.
He wiped out families, villages, cities and cultures, and drove four million people into exile.
He killed between 100,000 and 200,000 Kurds. He killed as many as 300,000 Shiites in the uprising after the Persian Gulf war. He killed or displaced 200,000 of the 250,000 marsh Arabs who had created a unique, centuries-old culture in the south. He drained the marshes, an environmental treasure, and turned them into a desert.
was a "treasonous failure"???
But YOU wanted Saddam to stay in power it appears...and that is a crime against the Iraqis and humanity!

 

[Freewill]

9824514

. Again ALL these Democrat statements BEFORE Bush was President... so how could Bush have lied if he was relying on Clinton's administration's Iraq/Saddam intelligence unless Clinton was the liar and that could never be right???

Bush was not lying in October 2002 and prior to that point in time. Bush was 100% correct to use the threat of military action to bring Iraq into compliance with international law with regard to Iraq's longstanding defiance of is disarmament obligations
i fully agreed with Bush prior to passage of UNSC Resolution 1441 in November 2002 which Bush had requested.

It is after 1441 that the Bush lies start and he ended up starting the dumbest war on record because there was non threat with UN inspectors on the ground and there was no humanitarian crisis within Iraq at the time the invasion began. The humanitarian crisis began after the invasion and foreign fighters terrorist went in for the first time.

What Bill Clinton said in 1998 had nothing to do with the stupid Bush decision to invade in March 2003. UN Resolution 1441 had passed and a working inspection and monitoring regime had been effectively set up. There was no excuse for killing people by the US in March 2003 and after that.

May it be pointed out, that the senior democrats all supported military action, until they didn't. May it be pointed out that we were enforcing a no fly zone protecting the Kurds and Saddam was firing missiles at our planes, it was only a matter of time. Inspections by the UN have proved to be less then adequate in the past why would they have worked then.

Are you going to vote for Hillary? She said the same things about Saddam and Iraq as did Bush. And she showed to be a two faced liar by supporting the war up until she ran for office, then she sees the light.

 

[Freewill]

I am talking about the Bush massive, treansonous failures that have so embolden ISIS and its allies to defy humanity.

You, apparently, side with ISIS.

Bush who? Your BS might have meant something 4 or 5 years ago Ignoring that you can't spell treasonous, what is treasonous in getting Congress, and Hillary, to vote on military action and then TAKING THAT ACTION. Was Hillary duped by the man, according to you who was a failure. Although we beat Saddam's army in a very short time with very few casualties, or much, much less then those like you predicted. And at the same time we kicked the Taliban out of running Afghanistan. All with a volunteer army. Something else you and your ilk said wouldn't happen.

So you didn't know what you were talking about then and nothing has changed. ISIS didn't form until President poopy pants armed them, that is what Stevens was doing, and he showed a definite lack of resolve in Iraq. ISIS happens when a President shows his hand and leads from the rear.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The USA did not hvae the authorityof the UN to invade Iraq: end of story.

Teh USA did not have the authority to enforce UN resolutions: end of authority.

Senior bushies cannot travel to certain parts of western Europe because they will be arrested: end of story.

 

[healthmyths]

9824514

. Again ALL these Democrat statements BEFORE Bush was President... so how could Bush have lied if he was relying on Clinton's administration's Iraq/Saddam intelligence unless Clinton was the liar and that could never be right???

Bush was not lying in October 2002 and prior to that point in time. Bush was 100% correct to use the threat of military action to bring Iraq into compliance with international law with regard to Iraq's longstanding defiance of is disarmament obligations
i fully agreed with Bush prior to passage of UNSC Resolution 1441 in November 2002 which Bush had requested.

It is after 1441 that the Bush lies start and he ended up starting the dumbest war on record because there was non threat with UN inspectors on the ground and there was no humanitarian crisis within Iraq at the time the invasion began. The humanitarian crisis began after the invasion and foreign fighters terrorist went in for the first time.

What Bill Clinton said in 1998 had nothing to do with the stupid Bush decision to invade in March 2003. UN Resolution 1441 had passed and a working inspection and monitoring regime had been effectively set up. There was no excuse for killing people by the US in March 2003 and after that.

So why according to the following NYT...
In five years 576,000 children starved BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
The sanctions were imposed by the Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Led by the United States, the Council has rejected many Iraqi appeals to lift the restrictions, which have crippled the economy, until Iraq accounts for all its weapons of mass destruction and United Nations inspectors can certify that they have been destroyed in accordance with several Council resolutions.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - New York Times

PLUS read what Bill Clinton said in 2/17/1998
Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff:

........Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq - February 17 1998

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am talking about the Bush massive, treansonous failures that have so embolden ISIS and its allies to defy humanity.

You, apparently, side with ISIS.

Bush who? Your BS might have meant something 4 or 5 years ago Ignoring that you can't spell treasonous, what is treasonous in getting Congress, and Hillary, to vote on military action and then TAKING THAT ACTION. Was Hillary duped by the man, according to you who was a failure. Although we beat Saddam's army in a very short time with very few casualties, or much, much less then those like you predicted. And at the same time we kicked the Taliban out of running Afghanistan. All with a volunteer army. Something else you and your ilk said wouldn't happen.

So you didn't know what you were talking about then and nothing has changed. ISIS didn't form until President poopy pants armed them, that is what Stevens was doing, and he showed a definite lack of resolve in Iraq. ISIS happens when a President shows his hand and leads from the rear.

hm, the USA had no UN or intrnational imprimatur to go to war.

The mess was caused by Bush overhwelmingly, and that is how the history books are putting it now.

 

[healthmyths]

I am talking about the Bush massive, treansonous failures that have so embolden ISIS and its allies to defy humanity.

You, apparently, side with ISIS.

Bush who? Your BS might have meant something 4 or 5 years ago Ignoring that you can't spell treasonous, what is treasonous in getting Congress, and Hillary, to vote on military action and then TAKING THAT ACTION. Was Hillary duped by the man, according to you who was a failure. Although we beat Saddam's army in a very short time with very few casualties, or much, much less then those like you predicted. And at the same time we kicked the Taliban out of running Afghanistan. All with a volunteer army. Something else you and your ilk said wouldn't happen.

So you didn't know what you were talking about then and nothing has changed. ISIS didn't form until President poopy pants armed them, that is what Stevens was doing, and he showed a definite lack of resolve in Iraq. ISIS happens when a President shows his hand and leads from the rear.

hm, the USA had no UN or intrnational imprimatur to go to war.

The mess was caused by Bush overhwelmingly, and that is how the history books are putting it now.

Where are your facts "the mess was caused by Bush.."Overhwelmingly"??/
Come on ! 18 words and you still stupidly can't even read the red dotted line telling you have a spelling error!
How in the hell can IDIOTS like you bash Bush for "overwhelming" mess when you can't even spell the word?
Don't you comprehend that without any sourcing and with such abject laziness displayed by not paying attention to simple things oh like "spelling" you again make yourself look so stupid and uninformed!
Idiots like you make wild ass ignorant statements like "history books are putting it now.." prove it!
Get me the history book and author that says "The mess was caused by Bush overhwelmingly"!!! I guarantee
that statement does not appear in ONE history book..i.e. they pay attention details!

 

[JakeStarkey]

hm can't guarantee anything of the sort

18 words is all that is necessary to rebut the nonsense of the far right reactionary neo-con and end of story.

If you are not supporting Congess and the pres, yo are supporting AQ and ISIS.

 

[dilloduck]

hm can't guarantee anything of the sort

18 words is all that is necessary to rebut the nonsense of the far right reactionary neo-con and end of story.

If you are not supporting Congess and the pres, yo are supporting AQ and ISIS.

LMAO--Jake is using a Bush quote.
and Obama is carrying out the neo con plan for the mideast quite nicely. They can just sit and watch him carry it out..

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is using a Bush quote but ou, duck. I don't see any massive heavy formations be sent to the ME, son.

That is why the neo-cons are crying.

 

[dilloduck]

No one is using a Bush quote byou, duck. I don't see any massive heavy formations be sent to the ME, son.

That is why the neo-cons are crying.

You either with us or against us ? That should sound mighty familiar, Jake. No need for massive formations for carry out the Neocon plan-----look at Libya.