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

[healthmyths]

hm once again provides a rambling incoherntly hysterical rant.

kiddo, you are not going to get your neo-con hearts' desires fulfilled.

After your fiasco in Iraq, you don't get a second chance. Ever.

Hey... Mr.Charles Starkweather...look him up as this was definitely before Sesame street...
Unbelievable! 9 word sentence and you can't pay attention to the built in spell checker which you obviously ignore!
Talk about "incoherent"!!! That is the correct spelling you poor uneducated boob!
Non of your comments have ANY credibility if you can't even spell the word incoherent correctly!
Talk about incoherence!
In addition NOT ONE refutation of my sourced and substantiated FACTS!
NOT ONE from you which is totally expected as you are someone who obviously is so oblivious to simple help the spellchecker provides ... so how could you have ANY comprehension of by sourced and substantiated FACTS!

I am constantly amazed at how you continue to show your ignorance in the simplest of ways...i.e. for god's sake learn how to use the computer and just don't type willy nilly what ever comes to your pea brain because NONE of your comments hold water if you can't even pay attention to the little red dotted line! It is NO wonder idiots like you are floundering! You can't even spell!

 

[francoHFW]

Get back on your meds...

Graham is GOP, btw...

 

[JakeStarkey]

hm once again provides a rambling incoherntly hysterical rant.

kiddo, you are not going to get your neo-con hearts' desires fulfilled.

After your fiasco in Iraq, you don't get a second chance. Ever.

Hey... Mr.Charles Starkweather...look him up as this was definitely before Sesame street...
Unbelievable! 9 word sentence and you can't pay attention to the built in spell checker which you obviously ignore!
Talk about "incoherent"!!! That is the correct spelling you poor uneducated boob!
Non of your comments have ANY credibility if you can't even spell the word incoherent correctly!
Talk about incoherence!
In addition NOT ONE refutation of my sourced and substantiated FACTS!
NOT ONE from you which is totally expected as you are someone who obviously is so oblivious to simple help the spellchecker provides ... so how could you have ANY comprehension of by sourced and substantiated FACTS!

I am constantly amazed at how you continue to show your ignorance in the simplest of ways...i.e. for god's sake learn how to use the computer and just don't type willy nilly what ever comes to your pea brain because NONE of your comments hold water if you can't even pay attention to the little red dotted line! It is NO wonder idiots like you are floundering! You can't even spell!

You are constantly befuddled because you can't process propaganda distinct from empirical data.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

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.

Of course I will vote for HRC as I have stated she was correct to vote in October 2002 to confront SH because UN inspectors were not in Iraq.

Then 1441 was passed in November and inspectors went in.

HRC was not standing at the podium on March 17 2003 lying to you and me that Iraq was hiding WMD from 200 UN inspectors. That was GWBush lying and announcing his lone decision to invade. Hillary took no part in that final decision with Bush. You have been fooled by Dubya to blame others for his very bad decision to lie to the world and invade Iraq instead of allowing the UN to disarm Iraq as he said that he wanted more than war.

 

[Freewill]

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.

Of course I will vote for HRC as I have stated she was correct to vote in October 2002 to confront SH because UN inspectors were not in Iraq.

Then 1441 was passed in November and inspectors went in.

HRC was not standing at the podium on March 17 2003 lying to you and me that Iraq was hiding WMD from 200 UN inspectors. That was GWBush lying and announcing his lone decision to invade. Hillary took no part in that final decision with Bush. You have been fooled by Dubya to blame others for his very bad decision to lie to the world and invade Iraq instead of allowing the UN to disarm Iraq as he said that he wanted more than war.

Hold you nose as hard as you want.

Rationalize all that you want.

But she said what she said knowing full well the evidence as well or better then anyone.

Is she a liar too? A liar you are willing to vote for?

 

[JakeStarkey]

HRC was not a liar in 2002, but you are 12 years later.

 

[healthmyths]

HRC was not a liar in 2002, but you are 12 years later.

So where is the LIE that George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and the following 32 democrat quotes reflect? Where is the LIE?
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs"[/U][/B] Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. 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 ...."
Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.
Hey Bush was using the data supplied by Clintons!

PLUS you explain something OK...
Saddam was starving 100,000 kids a year because HE WOULD NOT CERTIFY THAT HIS WMDs were destroyed!
Why would ANY sane person knowing these kids are being denied food simply because he was pretending he had WMDs?

So any compassionate leader like Bush/Clintons,etc. would have to come to the conclusion.. "if Saddam won't certify he has destroyed
the WMDs in spite of 100,000 children starving per year... " what would you think?
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

 

[JakeStarkey]

Posting all that means nothing in terms of the false premise for going to war, the fact we were not the US was not legally right which makes Bush a war criminally, and the terrible circumstances since then. Iran is a closer ally to Iraq then we are, and that will only continue.


The neo-cons will not get a second chance.

 

[TooTall]

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.

If that was true, and of course it isn't, why did the leading Democrats vote to invade Iraq? And, I will ask for at least the fourth time, what lie did Bush tell that was not a repeat of statements made by Kerry, the Clinton's, and dozens of other Democrats? Answer me that!

Because they all pony up to the same trough?

Or they all were provided the same intelligence about Iraq started during the Clinton administration as well as from several other free world intelligence agencies.

 

[TooTall]

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.

Of course I will vote for HRC as I have stated she was correct to vote in October 2002 to confront SH because UN inspectors were not in Iraq.

Then 1441 was passed in November and inspectors went in.

HRC was not standing at the podium on March 17 2003 lying to you and me that Iraq was hiding WMD from 200 UN inspectors. That was GWBush lying and announcing his lone decision to invade. Hillary took no part in that final decision with Bush. You have been fooled by Dubya to blame others for his very bad decision to lie to the world and invade Iraq instead of allowing the UN to disarm Iraq as he said that he wanted more than war.

BS

"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

 

[healthmyths]

Posting all that means nothing in terms of the false premise for going to war, the fact we were not the US was not legally right which makes Bush a war criminally, and the terrible circumstances since then. Iran is a closer ally to Iraq then we are, and that will only continue.


The neo-cons will not get a second chance.

"False Premise"???
So let me understand that based on your comment you are defaulting on your home loan or more likely you aren't paying your parents the rent for your basement room that you agreed to in writing? Because when you agreed to the loan or to the rent you said:
I agree in exchange for place to sleep to pay you and if I don't pay according to this agreement I can be evicted." That make sense?
Or when you bought your pinto you signed a loan document that stated basically you don't pay for the car they can take it away.. all according to the agreement you signed. That sound right to you?
In other words when two parties i.e. US and Iraq agreed to the 1991 Cease Fire it wasn't to never resume hostilities. It was simply to "Cease fire" and that was the agreement that Saddam agreed to so he wouldn't get thrown out.

So you agree to pay your rent/home and car payments BUT you didn't hold Saddam to his keeping the "1991 Cease fire"...i.e. he continued to fire on planes in the no-fly zone, he paid suicide bombers $25,000 among other violations of the 1991 Cease Fire"... but that was OK for him right?

 

[TooTall]

Just right, Jim H., and I am wondering if the America haters like healthmyths will support the pres, the congress, and the american people in time of crisis.

I don't know who the America haters are, but I can't imagine the Democrats turning on Obama like they did on Bush.

 

[JakeStarkey]

home loan is not similar to going to war, health myths, but that type of nonsense has given us hours and urs of mirth.

Except for the dead, the damaged, their families, and their friends.

Bush screwed up badly and as soon as folks caught on, he was rightly denounced for it. Anybody who support him today are guilty of supporting leader who should be tried at The Hague for war crimes..

 

[healthmyths]

home loan is not similar to going to war, health myths, but that type of nonsense has given us hours and urs of mirth.

Except for the dead, the damaged, their families, and their friends.

Bush screwed up badly and as soon as folks caught on, he was rightly denounced for it. Anybody who support him today are guilty of supporting leader who should be tried at The Hague for war crimes..

So The 1991 CEASE FIRE meant nothing??? Why was there an agreement? Why did Saddam agree to the terms and then break the agreement? Because HE LIKE you don't give a flip for principles!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The cease fire violations are ONLY legitimate to the UN, not the USA. You are the one who hates principles. We had no legitimate authority to act under the UN resolutions because the UN WOULD NOT GIVE IT TO US.

 

[LeftofLeft]

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.

If Bush failed, the next guy ran on the platform that he could correct Bush's failures, and, he's had 6 years to correct it, how can you blame Bush? If Bush failed, the next guy has failed to correct Bush's failures. Who has failed?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because someone did not adequately correct Bush's failures excuses Bush?

A patient so mortally wounded can't be saved by a doctor, so it is the doctor's fault?

No wonder the millennials laugh at you folks.

 

[TooTall]

The cease fire violations are ONLY legitimate to the UN, not the USA. You are the one who hates principles. We had no legitimate authority to act under the UN resolutions because the UN WOULD NOT GIVE IT TO US.

We did have authority from the UN to enforce the material breach of the cease fire as well as authority from the US Congress. If push comes to shove, the US Congress wins out over the UN every time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, we asked for UN authority to enforce the resolutions and were denied such by the UN.

Congress can protect our leaders here, but Bush and the others don't go to western Europe because they would not come home.

 

[healthmyths]

The cease fire violations are ONLY legitimate to the UN, not the USA. You are the one who hates principles. We had no legitimate authority to act under the UN resolutions because the UN WOULD NOT GIVE IT TO US.

FACT!
U.S. Ambassador John D. Negroponte noted that Resolution 687, which was adopted in April 1991, imposed disarmament obligations on Iraq that were conditions of the cease-fire signed at the end of the Gulf War, during which another U.S.-led coalition drove Baghdad's troops from Kuwait.

"It has long been recognized and understood that a material breach of these obligations removes the basis of the cease-fire and revives the authority to use force under Resolution 678," Negroponte wrote.
"In view of Iraq's material breaches, the basis for the cease-fire has been removed, and use of force is authorized."

The legal justification for the invasion is in dispute among many nations as well as some international lawyers, who argue that the Security Council had to rule on a "material breach" or give specific authorization before any invasion could take place.

He said Iraq had repeatedly refused to respond to diplomatic overtures, economic sanctions and other peaceful means designed to bring about compliance with its obligations to disarm and allow inspections of its weapons programs.

Consequently, military action was an "appropriate response" and necessary "to defend the United States and the international community from the threat posed by Iraq and to restore international peace and security in the area," Negroponte wrote.

"In carrying out these operations, our forces will take all reasonable precautions to avoid civilian casualties."
U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion - Los Angeles Times
So to put it in terms YOU can understand..
Based on the UN Resolution 687 when Saddam breached the 1991 Cease Fire, the Cease Fire no longer existed and the UN Resolution 687 was resumed. In other words the 1991 Desert Storm never stopped but paused for the Cease Fire and when Saddam breached the Cease Fire, 687 continued.