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

[JakeStarkey]

And she continues to melt down.

You have nothing, econchick, at all.

Every argument in this thread and others by you and have been easily refuted.

 

[EconChick]

We are witnessing another econchick melt down.

And she continues to melt down.

You have nothing, econchick, at all.

Every argument in this thread and others by you and have been easily refuted.

Only crack heads welfare queens believe you, fat ass. Ooops, gotta go watch the Benghazi Security Team kick some Democrat Congressman's ass now. Buhhh bye, shit for brains. LOL

 

[NYcarbineer]

We are witnessing another econchick melt down.

Pride goeth before the fall.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bush said he would not have invaded Iraq if he knew the WMDs were not there. No ifs ands or buts, no exclusions

You're the dumbest **** on this entire board. I assure you you don't know how to interpret a sophisticated person's comments.

I put that out on the news wires, "EconChick says she is sophisticated", and we could feel the world shift on its axis as the laughter shook the cosmos

Intelligent people luvvvvvvvvvvvvv me.

I'm not surprised you don't.

Get it,get it?? LMAO

Look you're just a beached whale that no one respects or listens to.

I notice you are incapable of debating me on substance. As usual.

So Fakey, were you in the military?

See unlike you, I actually ask instead of making presumptions.

What was your rank?

It's been very entertaining to watch your deterioration. Classic!!

LOL, my threads have been brilliantly prescient. Intelligent people tell me that all the time. I'm having a ball, moron.

You're just a partisan hack the feels extremely insecure by my presence. Poor idiot.

Why don't you back up a few posts and substantively refute the snopes debunking of the yellowcake nonsense?

 

[JakeStarkey]

She can't.

 

[Bush92]

So why were Democrats in favor of Kosovo in 1998 but opposed to Iraq in 2003? It was all politics for 99.9999999999% of Democrats out there and on this board. I was a vet who was opposed to regime change due to all the chaos that's going on right now. Anyone who studied Islamic and Middle Eastern history would have known this. I have editorials and columns I wrote to back this up. Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, and all the other Democrats who were going to run for President or re-election in Senate, cast a vote in favor of Neo-con policy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kosovo? We sent 150,000 American troops into Kosovo?

 

[Bush92]

Kosovo? We sent 150,000 American troops into Kosovo?

Did you support or oppose it? Did you support "no fly zones?" Bosnia? Hati?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Did you support Kosovo and Haiti and Iraq?

 

[healthmyths]

[

HEY IGNORANT!!!
I said you were RIGHT... THERE WERE NONE! !

Then spare me and go argue with the posters like Econchick who are still insisting there were...

I'll say it again.. THERE WERE NO WMDs that according to the Clinton Administration and these Democrat quotes said there were:
"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"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

So let's start from there... these Clinton Democrats SAID there were WMDs.
Then add 576,000 children that starved to the equation because Saddam would NOT certify his WMDs were destroyed.
I assume you are a reasonable and compassionate person so why wouldn't you and the above Democrats continue to insist Saddam had WMDs ?
So Clinton/Bush et.al. should be as you insist charged with war crimes? What distinguishes the above Democrats from Bush?
Surely it is not a political affiliation?

So if you are a reasonable and compassionate person and YOU repeatedly as the UN did asked Saddam to certify there were no WMDs,
BUT he wouldn't certified forcing 100,000 children a year to starve what would you have done ... and don't use your 20/20 hindsight!

Remember when this all happened. 9/11 and anthrax attacks.. and all of us (possibly not you because you are so smart..) were very afraid that more attacks were coming.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you conclude that Bush et al were every bit as wrong as the Clintonites.

The harm wrecked on the ME by us was worse than by the Arabs on themselves.

The US launched an illegal war without UN approval of its reasons or its goals.

Bush et al all are war criminals, and those who support them are we now know that WMDs as described by the bushies did not exist are conspiring to hide war crimes.

 

[healthmyths]

So you conclude that Bush et al were every bit as wrong as the Clintonites.

The harm wrecked on the ME by us was worse than by the Arabs on themselves.

The US launched an illegal war without UN approval of its reasons or its goals.

Bush et al all are war criminals, and those who support them are we now know that WMDs as described by the bushies did not exist are conspiring to hide war crimes.

NO they weren't wrong in saving 1.2 million children from starving which Clinton with 8 years and Bush with less then 1 year of experience in dealing with Saddam would have experienced if they had listened to such wise and prescient people like you!

There would be 28 million people still living in fear of a "..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998..
There was a lot more to the Liberation of Iraq then JUST WMDs...
WMDs Found!
Scott Pelley CBS News. :
"It turns out Saddam Hussein did possess a weapon of mass destruction and he used it in a slaughter that few have heard of until now: after the Gulf War in 1991, the dictator spent untold millions on this weapon, designed to exterminate an ancient civilization called the "Ma'dan," also known as the "Marsh Arabs."
In a five-year project 90 percent of the marshes were drained - an area of more than 3,000 square miles.
"... the marsh dwellers were important elements in the uprising against Saddam Hussein’s regime. To end the rebellion, the regime implemented an intensive system of drainage and water diversion structures that desiccated over 90% of the marshes. The reed beds were also burned and poison introduced to the waters.
It is estimated that more than 500,000 were displaced, 95,000 of them to Iran, 300,000 internally displaced, and the remainder to other countries. By January 2003, the majority of the marshes were wastelands.
"As an engineer, I'm telling you, drying of the marshes is definitely not an easy task. It's a monumental engineering project," Alwash explained. "He put every piece of equipment available in Iraq under his control at the services of the projects needed to dry the marshes."
"Saddam was using water as a weapon?" Pelley asked.
"You know, the world was looking for weapons of mass destruction. And the evidence was right under its nose," Alwash.
Resurrecting Eden - 60 Minutes Videos - CBS News

 

[BlindBoo]

Now here is an outstanding thread. I almost thought about starting a similar one but glad you're more willing to take the time with these Obamabots, healthmyths.

When I have time I'd like to post in there. In the meantime, it's comical to watch Fakey be completely decimated for his vacuous statements on everything.

At least Not Fooled and Boo are trying to have an intelligent conversation. Fakey is just a shallow dude that lacks intelligence AND integrity.

I'd like to see one of these Obamabots prove nuke WMD was NOT moved from Iraq. We all know CHEM WMD was moved into Syria. Sarin gas is WMD and anyone still denying THAT is even dumber than the piss ants. It's all over open source.

The most the corrupt press can say about NUKE WMD is it wasn't found INSIDE Iraq. And even that becomes debatable with the 500 tons of yellowcake moved out in 2008.

That yellowcake was from before 1991 and was well accounted for and had nothing to do with claims in 2003 that Saddam was acquiring yellowcake for a nuclear program.

More proof you've never been to Iraq or in any way involved with the military or else you would have known that was a worn out thoroughly debunked myth:

snopes.com Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq

So enough with the posing.

As usual you show how brainwashed you are. And darling, unlike you, I have plenty pictures that show I was there. U wanna put $2000 behind your lies too?

Don't answer that. You libs have demonstrated yourselves to be vacuous, cowardly, weasels when it comes to backing up the poop you throw out there. We already know you won't back it up.



As for the WMD, we've already resolved this in other threads.

Is sarin gas WMD or not?

One more time, is the sarin gas in Syria WMD or not? You know....the stuff Obama drew the red line for.

So one more time, is sarin gas WMD?

Don't answer, your brain isn't big enough.

But most people know it is.

As for nuke WMD, Bush only ever said it wasn't found in Iraq.

Show me where he said otherwise. And no, your libtard interpretation of what Bush said doesn't count. I want you to show me where he said an exhaustive search outside of Iraq was done.

You can't because he didn't.

And the yellowcake? You're an even bigger idiot than I thought. It's not even worth my time to educate you.

Just shut the **** up on this subject. You're just as stupid as Fakey. No one believes what either of you say on the subject.

Please tell your opinions about that Yellowcake!

 

[EconChick]

Here, I'll repeat my earlier questions none of you libs answered in Post 88:

"As for the WMD, we've already resolved this in other threads.

Is sarin gas WMD or not?

One more time, is the sarin gas in Syria WMD or not? You know....the stuff Obama drew the red line for.

So one more time, is sarin gas WMD?

Don't answer, your brain isn't big enough.
But most people know it is.

As for nuke WMD, Bush only ever said it wasn't found in Iraq.

Show me where he said otherwise. And no, your libtard interpretation of what Bush said doesn't count. I want you to show me where he said an exhaustive search outside of Iraq was done.

You can't because he didn't. "

If you can't answer these simple questions, you surely won't follow the yellowcake discussion.

I'll keep waiting for one of you libs to answer.


But I expect to keep hearing crickets.......

 

[EconChick]

And she continues to melt down.

Oh, I've definitely burned your fat ass to a crisp on this topic and every other one! LOL

 

[EconChick]

Kosovo? We sent 150,000 American troops into Kosovo?

Did you support or oppose it? Did you support "no fly zones?" Bosnia? Hati?

Notice how the biggest FAKE on the entire board, FAKEY, never answers the question, LOL.

I know all the independent thinkers see it.....

 

[EconChick]

So you conclude that Bush et al were every bit as wrong as the Clintonites.

The harm wrecked on the ME by us was worse than by the Arabs on themselves.

The US launched an illegal war without UN approval of its reasons or its goals.

Bush et al all are war criminals, and those who support them are we now know that WMDs as described by the bushies did not exist are conspiring to hide war crimes.

yawn

 

[TooTall]

hm, you could write a book on the subject and be wrong.

The UN did not giv eus the right to enforce UN resolutions, which was exactly what Bush and Powell were trying to get with the later's testimony.

The senior neo-con leaders in Bush's administration cannot travel to western Europe.

They never will be without being arrested for war crimes.

Since Obama is using the same authorization to bomb Syria that was used by George Bush, I feel very certain that you will be calling for his arrest and prosecution for war crimes as well. Am I right?

The Obama administration instead pointed to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which gives the president authority to act “against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” The administration has also cited the 2003 AUMF that authorized the president to go to war to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” then governed by Saddam Hussein.

The White House’s defenders argue that the 2001 AUMF gives Obama the authority he needs to fight ISIS because, while ISIS broke from al-Qaida in 2012, it is nonetheless composed of former al-Qaida members (at least in part), who have (or so it is argued by the administration) continuously conducted and sought to conduct attacks against the United States and its citizens and interests.

 

[EconChick]

hm, you could write a book on the subject and be wrong.

The UN did not giv eus the right to enforce UN resolutions, which was exactly what Bush and Powell were trying to get with the later's testimony.

The senior neo-con leaders in Bush's administration cannot travel to western Europe.

They never will be without being arrested for war crimes.

Since Obama is using the same authorization to bomb Syria that was used by George Bush, I feel very certain that you will be calling for his arrest and prosecution for war crimes as well. Am I right?

The Obama administration instead pointed to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which gives the president authority to act “against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” The administration has also cited the 2003 AUMF that authorized the president to go to war to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” then governed by Saddam Hussein.

The White House’s defender sargue that the 2001 AUMF gives Obama the authority he needs to fight ISIS because, while ISIS broke from al-Qaida in 2012, it is nonetheless composed of former al-Qaida members (at least in part), who have (or so it is argued by the administration) continuously conducted and sought to conduct attacks against the United States and its citizens and interests.

Great post.

 

[EconChick]

hm, you could write a book on the subject and be wrong.

The UN did not giv eus the right to enforce UN resolutions, which was exactly what Bush and Powell were trying to get with the later's testimony.

The senior neo-con leaders in Bush's administration cannot travel to western Europe.

They never will be without being arrested for war crimes.

Since Obama is using the same authorization to bomb Syria that was used by George Bush, I feel very certain that you will be calling for his arrest and prosecution for war crimes as well. Am I right?

The Obama administration instead pointed to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which gives the president authority to act “against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” The administration has also cited the 2003 AUMF that authorized the president to go to war to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” then governed by Saddam Hussein.

The White House’s defenders argue that the 2001 AUMF gives Obama the authority he needs to fight ISIS because, while ISIS broke from al-Qaida in 2012, it is nonetheless composed of former al-Qaida members (at least in part), who have (or so it is argued by the administration) continuously conducted and sought to conduct attacks against the United States and its citizens and interests.

In fact that would be a great thread title, LOL....asking if libs will ask for O's arrest and prosecution. You should do if you have time. That would be a funny thread.