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

[TooTall]

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.

Are you suggesting that Bush would be arrested if he went to western Europe?

 

[TooTall]

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.

U.S. investigators hunting for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have found no evidence that such material was moved to Syria for safekeeping before the war, according to a final report of the investigation released yesterday.

Although Syria helped Iraq evade U.N.-imposed sanctions by shipping military and other products across its borders, the investigators "found no senior policy, program, or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD." Because of the insular nature of Saddam Hussein's government, however, the investigators were "unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."

The Iraq Survey Group's main findings

Report Finds No Evidence Syria Hid Iraqi Arms

The Yellowcake is a non-issue. It was not hidden from anyone.

What is yellowcake anyway

They also never found any of the thousands of Iraqi personnel that would have had to have been involved in multiple major WMD programs of the nature we were led to believe Saddam was operating.

To me that's always been the most solid proof the programs never existed. No people, no programs.

Point 1.
Question... would you allow this?:
By BARBARA CROSSETTE Published: December 1, 1995
In five years 576,000 Iraqi children starved to death.
Why ? 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.

Recent revelations about significant secret biological and chemical weapons programs have set back any chances of an early end of sanctions.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - New York Times

Albright, who'd just become Secretary of State, went to Georgetown
"We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful intentions...And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein's intentions will never be peaceful...
Clearly, a change in Iraq's government could lead to a change in U.S. policy. Should that occur, we would stand ready, in coordination with our allies and friends, to enter rapidly into a dialogue with the successor regime"
A Tiny Revolution Was Iraq Going To Be Certified WMD-Free In 1997

So given Saddam's refusal to certify WMDs destruction on pain of 100,000 starving children per year why would Clinton/Bush administration believe there were still WMDs? I mean would you want 100,000 kids a year to starve ....OVER A LIE???
All Saddam had to do was certify.

Point 2.
After these Democrats insisting that:
"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

And these were ALL before Bush became President!

Point 3.
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


With all the above asking for Saddam removal, his son-in-law testifying Saddam had WMDs and finally wouldn't you believe Saddam DID have WMDs if he was willing to let 576 children to starve rather then certify he'd destroyed the WMDs?
What would you do?

Where are the thousands of personnel who would have been working on those WMD programs?

It's a simple enough question, and yet not one of you can answer it, BUT,

without people, no WMD programs could have been possible.

Who was Hillary talking about in this quote?

"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

 

[TooTall]

HM 9953159

So given this article by the NYT...

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - New York Times
This article reports in five years 576,000 children starved because 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.
Saddam could have saved these children from starvation simply by certifying Iraq's WMDs were destroyed.
Why didn't he?
To most of us that care for children his allowing these 576,000 children to starve meant only one thing...Saddam had WMDs or why else would he not
certify the destruction?
Almost all civilized countries wanted to lift the sanctions . So why would Saddam to save future children from starvation would he just simply certify?
Now the common retort is Saddam feared Iraq more then the USA and by refusing to certify he constrained Iran from conflict with Iraq.
Saddam feared Iran more then the USA.

My simple retort to those sophisticated elitists that want to blame the entire problem on the USA is this:
would you let another 1.2 million starve over the next 11 years starve just so Saddam could continue the pretext he had WMDs thereby fooling Iran?
I really don't understand you Bush haters and haters of the Liberation of Iraq because you complained about 100,000 mostly killed by terrorists Iraqis while never considering the 1.2 million children that are alive today because Saddam was removed.
Where is your compassion for these 1.2 million kids alive today because Saddam convicted and executed by his own people?

That's one of the most incomprehensible attempts to justify the US invasion into Iraq I've heard yet.

Are you serious?

You are probably right. Why would anyone care if Saddam starved 1.2 million kids.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

HM 9957791 regarding NF 9957415, DT 9955882, NF 9954947, DT 9952118, NF 9952067, FW 9832286, NF 9832231, FW 9826516

Where were you in 9/21/2001 when George W. Bush Presidential Job Approval rating was 92% of Americans approved? Were you in that 8% that disapproved?

Nope. Don't be an idiot. I have explained my position right after 9/11 dozens of times. I am one of the few that still supports Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan. I supported Bush's decision in 2002 to confront Iraq on their disarmament violations and calling for the UN to get inspectors back into Iraq.



HM 9957791 regarding NF 9957415, DT 9955882, NF 9954947, DT 9952118, NF 9952067, FW 9832286, NF 9832231, FW 9826516

What did Bush do at the time of 9/11 with 3,000 people died, $1 trillion in assets destroyed, 18,000 businesses destroyed, 400,000 people put out of work, airlines not flying for 3 days and wall st closed for 10 days. Were you one of those 8% that didn't approve of what Bush was doing to keep Americans bucked up?

I wasn't bucked down. But I supported Bush removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. So I approved of what Bush did in response to the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks that occurred on his watch,

What is your argument now that I cieared that up for you?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

TT163 9958803 regarding NY 9849288, HM 9849255, NY 9848980, BB 9848841, EC 9848689

Who was Hillary talking about in this quote?

"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

That's some serious selective editing there TooTall. That was in October 2002. There were no inspectors in Iraq for four years as she said. She repeated what our intelligence community believed at the time. So what is your point? Because about a month after she said these things, Iraq allowed the inspectors to come back in. She favored avoiding war by getting inspections resumed if possible. If you read the rest of the same speech you would know the truth about what Senator Clinton said. Let me help you out here with some key excerpts:

October 10, 2002 Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq' Delivered

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I agreed with Bush's call to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail. So did Senator Clinton.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

Senator Clinton supports the inspection process because she emphasized that when she said, "the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War"

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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

You note that HRC said "if left unchecked" ... that is a reference to her belief in checking through UN inspections.


What to do about it? Option One:

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger.

She is opposed to Option One: The Option of not going through the UN.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.

She says she is opposed to Option One in plain and clear language:

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Senator Clinton defines Option Two. Going fully through the UN:

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it.

She then defines the problems with Option Two.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act.

She does not wish to tie the national security interest of the United States to the whims of the UNSC and potential vetoes of mainly Russia and China.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

Here is the Senator from New York's choice. "go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq."

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

Here is where HRC says she takes Bush at his word that he is seeking peaceful disarmament as well.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

And here HRC explains why this vote to authorize force is needed. Its because "success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely,"

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

Yes, War was to be less likely ..... if the US Congress backed the President in authorizing war up front rather than coming back later if the attempts to get inspections resumed fail.

I fully agree with what HRC said when she cast her vote in October 2002.

And one month later the UNSC unanimously passed UN Resolution 1441 giving Iraq a FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY so that as HRC said it would make, "success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely,"


If you bother to read this, let me know.

 

[TooTall]

TT163 9958803 regarding NY 9849288, HM 9849255, NY 9848980, BB 9848841, EC 9848689

Who was Hillary talking about in this quote?

"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

That's some serious selective editing there TooTall. That was in October 2002. There were no inspectors in Iraq for four years as she said. She repeated what our intelligence community believed at the time. So what is your point? Because about a month after she said these things, Iraq allowed the inspectors to come back in. She favored avoiding war by getting inspections resumed if possible. If you read the rest of the same speech you would know the truth about what Senator Clinton said. Let me help you out here with some key excerpts:

October 10, 2002 Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq' Delivered

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I agreed with Bush's call to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail. So did Senator Clinton.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

Senator Clinton supports the inspection process because she emphasized that when she said, "the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War"

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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

You note that HRC said "if left unchecked" ... that is a reference to her belief in checking through UN inspections.


What to do about it? Option One:

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger.

She is opposed to Option One: The Option of not going through the UN.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.

She says she is opposed to Option One in plain and clear language:

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Senator Clinton defines Option Two. Going fully through the UN:

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it.

She then defines the problems with Option Two.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act.

She does not wish to tie the national security interest of the United States to the whims of the UNSC and potential vetoes of mainly Russia and China.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

Here is the Senator from New York's choice. "go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq."

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

Here is where HRC says she takes Bush at his word that he is seeking peaceful disarmament as well.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

And here HRC explains why this vote to authorize force is needed. Its because "success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely,"

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

Yes, War was to be less likely ..... if the US Congress backed the President in authorizing war up front rather than coming back later if the attempts to get inspections resumed fail.

I fully agree with what HRC said when she cast her vote in October 2002.

And one month later the UNSC unanimously passed UN Resolution 1441 giving Iraq a FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY so that as HRC said it would make, "success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely,"


If you bother to read this, let me know.

I read it and and all I can remember is at this point, what does it matter. Hillary voted to go to war and then said I was only fooling.

 

[Contumacious]

"..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???

The WAR PARTY owns BOTH political Parties. It requires the ever presence of bogeymen

The Bogeyman Industry

John: A wonderful treatment of how the state’s bogeyman racket works can be found in the fictional work, Report From Iron Mountain. It helps to explain the post-Soviet Union crisis in which the American political establishment - left without a hobgoblin to terrorize Boobus into surrendering his/her liberty, property, children, and grandchildren – has had to fabricate new imagined threats, be they drug-dealers, child-abductors [remember all those pictures of children on milk-cartons?], terrorists, immigrants, even aliens from other solar systems! As long as Boobus continues to engage in this cranial-rectal-inversion, the Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, Cheneys, Holders, Pelosis, McCains, Bachmanns, et al. will continue to have work.

 

[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???

The WAR PARTY owns BOTH political Parties. It requires the ever presence of bogeymen

The Bogeyman Industry

John: A wonderful treatment of how the state’s bogeyman racket works can be found in the fictional work, Report From Iron Mountain. It helps to explain the post-Soviet Union crisis in which the American political establishment - left without a hobgoblin to terrorize Boobus into surrendering his/her liberty, property, children, and grandchildren – has had to fabricate new imagined threats, be they drug-dealers, child-abductors [remember all those pictures of children on milk-cartons?], terrorists, immigrants, even aliens from other solar systems! As long as Boobus continues to engage in this cranial-rectal-inversion, the Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, Cheneys, Holders, Pelosis, McCains, Bachmanns, et al. will continue to have work.

Maybe you should pass this on to ISIS...The Mexican Cartel.. North Korea...and others that are the innocent people!

 

[whutTHEYsay]

HM001 9824514

"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD" Bill Clinton,1998

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???

Talk about a dumb question coming from healthmyths. Its no wonder EconChick was impressed with this thread. It should be obvious to healthmyths as to why Bush lied in March 2003 when he said Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors precisely because Bill Clinton's 1998 airstrikes to "deny the capacity to develop WMD" actually did apparently deny capacity to develop them.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

TT166 9960204 regarding NF165 9959806, TT163 9958803, NY 9849288, HM 9849255, NY 9848980, BB 9848841, EC 9848689

I read it and and all I can remember is at this point, what does it matter. Hillary voted to go to war and then said I was only fooling.

It matters TooTall because you chose to cite a small snippet of Senator Clinton's entire speech and take it out of context for your attempt at a typical right winger political smear. Perhaps what I provided was too much in one post for your recall and comprehension ability to handle. Hilliary did not vote to go to war if diplomatic efforts were not to fail. The diplomatic efforts, consisting mainly of the resumption of UN Inspections came within 45 days of this vote and they did not fail. Bush failed to allow them to finish their work.

The start of Senator Clintons remarks explains this. Perhaps you skimmed past it just a bit too quickly:

October 10, 2002 Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq' Delivered

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts failto dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

TT166 9960204 regarding NF165 9959806, TT163 9958803, NY 9849288, HM 9849255, NY 9848980, BB 9848841, EC 9848689

I read it and and all I can remember is at this point, what does it matter. Hillary voted to go to war and then said I was only fooling.

Perhaps it will come together for you TooTall if you read more slowly and spend more time contemplating the parts of the speech that rightwing haters generally choose to ignore.


Here is where HRC says she takes Bush at his word that he is seeking peaceful disarmament as well.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

 

[healthmyths]

HM001 9824514

"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD" Bill Clinton,1998

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???

Talk about a dumb question coming from healthmyths. Its no wonder EconChick was impressed with this thread. It should be obvious to healthmyths as to why Bush lied in March 2003 when he said Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors precisely because Bill Clinton's 1998 airstrikes to "deny the capacity to develop WMD" actually did apparently deny capacity to develop them.

What exact lie did Bush PERSONALLY MAKE UP with NO OTHER sources totally based on Bush's personally KNOWING that
ALL the WMDs were destroyed?
These people said Saddam had WMDs...

"..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 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"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.

Where did the above people get their information to form their opinions?

 

[BlindBoo]

HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

.

1.2 million SAVED from Starvation Death SERIOUS!

You are ignoring my reply to that. Any issues of starvation or whatever domestic issues could be dealt with after the disarmament issues were settled. Bush signed on to UN 1441 and did not invade Iraq over starvation or genocide. He claimed Iraq was hiding WMD from the 1441 inspection regime. That was not true.





HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Of course people like you for POLITICAL reasons would love to have had Saddam stay in power...thus allowing his continual killing by starvation and murder thousands of Iraqis which obviously was OK with you!

People like me do not do not believe in starting wars and killing people unless there is a threat to our national security. Your argument does not meet that threshold or come close. People like you are for killing people on trumped up charges and when charges are found to be false go around digging up convenient excuses to cover the original lies.



HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Of course I serious. All Saddam had to do was certify. He didn't.

The only outstanding issue in March 2003 was thev1990's unilateral destruction by Iraq without UN observation of VX and other chemical wespons. That was being addressed when Bush, not Iraq, decided to end the peaceful process and started a war.



HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Thanks to the Liberation of Iraq and in spite of traitors like you and these following DEMOCRATS who HELPED prolong the war.... But you ignore these benefits, lives saved and ecology restored!

You are arguing that US combat troops busting into Iraqi homes brandishing their weapons does not terrorize women and children living there. You are a fool if you are. Part of Petraeus' COIN strategy was to end US troops entering Iraqi homes and confronting women and children. It was best to let Iraqi troops do that.

You are arguing that the women and children and old men were not shot dead at Haditha? The students in the taxi were not shot dead execution style? There was no attempt to cover up that mass killing - some at point blank range?

What is wrong with you?

No what is wrong is idiots like you and these traitors that gave all the ammunition as if they handed out bullets to kill our soldiers!
Idiots like you don't seem to comprehend words have meanings!
Calling our troops terrorists, cold blooded killers helped the TERRORISTS as it certainly NEVER NEVER applied to the majority of US Troops that died protecting children! You idiots like Murtha,Obama you say those terrible words for political purposes ONLY! These words are used by the terrorists to recruit more and here is a study that proved it!

"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?
THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT

Actually partisan hacks like this who lie about the meaning of what was said, give our enemies comfort.

 

[healthmyths]

HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

.

1.2 million SAVED from Starvation Death SERIOUS!

You are ignoring my reply to that. Any issues of starvation or whatever domestic issues could be dealt with after the disarmament issues were settled. Bush signed on to UN 1441 and did not invade Iraq over starvation or genocide. He claimed Iraq was hiding WMD from the 1441 inspection regime. That was not true.





HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Of course people like you for POLITICAL reasons would love to have had Saddam stay in power...thus allowing his continual killing by starvation and murder thousands of Iraqis which obviously was OK with you!

People like me do not do not believe in starting wars and killing people unless there is a threat to our national security. Your argument does not meet that threshold or come close. People like you are for killing people on trumped up charges and when charges are found to be false go around digging up convenient excuses to cover the original lies.



HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Of course I serious. All Saddam had to do was certify. He didn't.

The only outstanding issue in March 2003 was thev1990's unilateral destruction by Iraq without UN observation of VX and other chemical wespons. That was being addressed when Bush, not Iraq, decided to end the peaceful process and started a war.



HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Thanks to the Liberation of Iraq and in spite of traitors like you and these following DEMOCRATS who HELPED prolong the war.... But you ignore these benefits, lives saved and ecology restored!

You are arguing that US combat troops busting into Iraqi homes brandishing their weapons does not terrorize women and children living there. You are a fool if you are. Part of Petraeus' COIN strategy was to end US troops entering Iraqi homes and confronting women and children. It was best to let Iraqi troops do that.

You are arguing that the women and children and old men were not shot dead at Haditha? The students in the taxi were not shot dead execution style? There was no attempt to cover up that mass killing - some at point blank range?

What is wrong with you?

No what is wrong is idiots like you and these traitors that gave all the ammunition as if they handed out bullets to kill our soldiers!
Idiots like you don't seem to comprehend words have meanings!
Calling our troops terrorists, cold blooded killers helped the TERRORISTS as it certainly NEVER NEVER applied to the majority of US Troops that died protecting children! You idiots like Murtha,Obama you say those terrible words for political purposes ONLY! These words are used by the terrorists to recruit more and here is a study that proved it!

"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?
THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT

Actually partisan hacks like this who lie about the meaning of what was said, give our enemies comfort.

But NOT ONE conservative "HACK" would EVER EVER EVER call our soldiers "terrorists" or "cold blood killers".. or methodically and all the time "air raiding villages killing civilians" which is so f...king ironic because today the person who said that ORDERED military to methodically and all the time air raid ISIS held villages killing civilians"!!!!

 

[BlindBoo]

HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

.

1.2 million SAVED from Starvation Death SERIOUS!

You are ignoring my reply to that. Any issues of starvation or whatever domestic issues could be dealt with after the disarmament issues were settled. Bush signed on to UN 1441 and did not invade Iraq over starvation or genocide. He claimed Iraq was hiding WMD from the 1441 inspection regime. That was not true.





HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Of course people like you for POLITICAL reasons would love to have had Saddam stay in power...thus allowing his continual killing by starvation and murder thousands of Iraqis which obviously was OK with you!

People like me do not do not believe in starting wars and killing people unless there is a threat to our national security. Your argument does not meet that threshold or come close. People like you are for killing people on trumped up charges and when charges are found to be false go around digging up convenient excuses to cover the original lies.



HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Of course I serious. All Saddam had to do was certify. He didn't.

The only outstanding issue in March 2003 was thev1990's unilateral destruction by Iraq without UN observation of VX and other chemical wespons. That was being addressed when Bush, not Iraq, decided to end the peaceful process and started a war.



HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Thanks to the Liberation of Iraq and in spite of traitors like you and these following DEMOCRATS who HELPED prolong the war.... But you ignore these benefits, lives saved and ecology restored!

You are arguing that US combat troops busting into Iraqi homes brandishing their weapons does not terrorize women and children living there. You are a fool if you are. Part of Petraeus' COIN strategy was to end US troops entering Iraqi homes and confronting women and children. It was best to let Iraqi troops do that.

You are arguing that the women and children and old men were not shot dead at Haditha? The students in the taxi were not shot dead execution style? There was no attempt to cover up that mass killing - some at point blank range?

What is wrong with you?

No what is wrong is idiots like you and these traitors that gave all the ammunition as if they handed out bullets to kill our soldiers!
Idiots like you don't seem to comprehend words have meanings!
Calling our troops terrorists, cold blooded killers helped the TERRORISTS as it certainly NEVER NEVER applied to the majority of US Troops that died protecting children! You idiots like Murtha,Obama you say those terrible words for political purposes ONLY! These words are used by the terrorists to recruit more and here is a study that proved it!

"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?
THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT

Actually partisan hacks like this who lie about the meaning of what was said, give our enemies comfort.

But NOT ONE conservative "HACK" would EVER EVER EVER call our soldiers "terrorists" or "cold blood killers".. or methodically and all the time "air raiding villages killing civilians" which is so f...king ironic because today the person who said that ORDERED military to methodically and all the time air raid ISIS held villages killing civilians"!!!!

That's a different topic however, you lie about what was said all the time.......

 

[Camp]

HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

.

1.2 million SAVED from Starvation Death SERIOUS!

You are ignoring my reply to that. Any issues of starvation or whatever domestic issues could be dealt with after the disarmament issues were settled. Bush signed on to UN 1441 and did not invade Iraq over starvation or genocide. He claimed Iraq was hiding WMD from the 1441 inspection regime. That was not true.





HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Of course people like you for POLITICAL reasons would love to have had Saddam stay in power...thus allowing his continual killing by starvation and murder thousands of Iraqis which obviously was OK with you!

People like me do not do not believe in starting wars and killing people unless there is a threat to our national security. Your argument does not meet that threshold or come close. People like you are for killing people on trumped up charges and when charges are found to be false go around digging up convenient excuses to cover the original lies.



HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Of course I serious. All Saddam had to do was certify. He didn't.

The only outstanding issue in March 2003 was thev1990's unilateral destruction by Iraq without UN observation of VX and other chemical wespons. That was being addressed when Bush, not Iraq, decided to end the peaceful process and started a war.



HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Thanks to the Liberation of Iraq and in spite of traitors like you and these following DEMOCRATS who HELPED prolong the war.... But you ignore these benefits, lives saved and ecology restored!

You are arguing that US combat troops busting into Iraqi homes brandishing their weapons does not terrorize women and children living there. You are a fool if you are. Part of Petraeus' COIN strategy was to end US troops entering Iraqi homes and confronting women and children. It was best to let Iraqi troops do that.

You are arguing that the women and children and old men were not shot dead at Haditha? The students in the taxi were not shot dead execution style? There was no attempt to cover up that mass killing - some at point blank range?

What is wrong with you?

No what is wrong is idiots like you and these traitors that gave all the ammunition as if they handed out bullets to kill our soldiers!
Idiots like you don't seem to comprehend words have meanings!
Calling our troops terrorists, cold blooded killers helped the TERRORISTS as it certainly NEVER NEVER applied to the majority of US Troops that died protecting children! You idiots like Murtha,Obama you say those terrible words for political purposes ONLY! These words are used by the terrorists to recruit more and here is a study that proved it!

"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?
THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT

Actually partisan hacks like this who lie about the meaning of what was said, give our enemies comfort.

But NOT ONE conservative "HACK" would EVER EVER EVER call our soldiers "terrorists" or "cold blood killers".. or methodically and all the time "air raiding villages killing civilians" which is so f...king ironic because today the person who said that ORDERED military to methodically and all the time air raid ISIS held villages killing civilians"!!!!

You can't back that garbage up. Show us a link of villages being hit with airstrikes. Show us a link of US Airmen and forces targeting villages. You are accusing those defending us at the risk of their lives with committing atrocities and war crimes. Back it up.

 

[healthmyths]

HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

.

1.2 million SAVED from Starvation Death SERIOUS!

You are ignoring my reply to that. Any issues of starvation or whatever domestic issues could be dealt with after the disarmament issues were settled. Bush signed on to UN 1441 and did not invade Iraq over starvation or genocide. He claimed Iraq was hiding WMD from the 1441 inspection regime. That was not true.





HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Of course people like you for POLITICAL reasons would love to have had Saddam stay in power...thus allowing his continual killing by starvation and murder thousands of Iraqis which obviously was OK with you!

People like me do not do not believe in starting wars and killing people unless there is a threat to our national security. Your argument does not meet that threshold or come close. People like you are for killing people on trumped up charges and when charges are found to be false go around digging up convenient excuses to cover the original lies.



HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Of course I serious. All Saddam had to do was certify. He didn't.

The only outstanding issue in March 2003 was thev1990's unilateral destruction by Iraq without UN observation of VX and other chemical wespons. That was being addressed when Bush, not Iraq, decided to end the peaceful process and started a war.



HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Thanks to the Liberation of Iraq and in spite of traitors like you and these following DEMOCRATS who HELPED prolong the war.... But you ignore these benefits, lives saved and ecology restored!

You are arguing that US combat troops busting into Iraqi homes brandishing their weapons does not terrorize women and children living there. You are a fool if you are. Part of Petraeus' COIN strategy was to end US troops entering Iraqi homes and confronting women and children. It was best to let Iraqi troops do that.

You are arguing that the women and children and old men were not shot dead at Haditha? The students in the taxi were not shot dead execution style? There was no attempt to cover up that mass killing - some at point blank range?

What is wrong with you?

No what is wrong is idiots like you and these traitors that gave all the ammunition as if they handed out bullets to kill our soldiers!
Idiots like you don't seem to comprehend words have meanings!
Calling our troops terrorists, cold blooded killers helped the TERRORISTS as it certainly NEVER NEVER applied to the majority of US Troops that died protecting children! You idiots like Murtha,Obama you say those terrible words for political purposes ONLY! These words are used by the terrorists to recruit more and here is a study that proved it!

"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?
THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT

Actually partisan hacks like this who lie about the meaning of what was said, give our enemies comfort.

But NOT ONE conservative "HACK" would EVER EVER EVER call our soldiers "terrorists" or "cold blood killers".. or methodically and all the time "air raiding villages killing civilians" which is so f...king ironic because today the person who said that ORDERED military to methodically and all the time air raid ISIS held villages killing civilians"!!!!

That's a different topic however, you lie about what was said all the time.......

Interesting point.."you lie about what was said all the time"...

How can anyone lie about when
Murtha said:""Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” Did Murtha say that or not? Am I lying about that?

Six of the eight Marines originally accused in the case had their charges dismissed by military judges,
and a seventh was cleared of criminal wrongdoing.
Marine pleads guilty ending final Haditha trial Reuters
"OUR TROOPS"??? ALL OUR TROOPS? ALL THE TIME???

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
John Kerry on the U.S. Military The Patriot Post
So I LIED when Kerry SAID ALL AMERICAN SOLDIERS go into homes terrorizing (i.e. terrorists!) kids and children"... I LIED about what
Kerry thinks about our military that ALL AMERICAN soldiers are terrorists???
See the enemy doesn't parse words. Don't provide "context"!
They do just as traitors do repeat these phrases that feeds the perceptions America is bad. Soldiers are terrorists. Thanks to people like you who also believe that!

And finally this Harvard study shows that "words" have meaning!!
FACT:LOOK at this Harvard study found here THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT
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.
STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. (wouldn't you conclude the next president accusing the US military of methodically and systematically air raiding villages killing civilians.. dissent???) We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

 

[healthmyths]

HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

.

1.2 million SAVED from Starvation Death SERIOUS!

You are ignoring my reply to that. Any issues of starvation or whatever domestic issues could be dealt with after the disarmament issues were settled. Bush signed on to UN 1441 and did not invade Iraq over starvation or genocide. He claimed Iraq was hiding WMD from the 1441 inspection regime. That was not true.





HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Of course people like you for POLITICAL reasons would love to have had Saddam stay in power...thus allowing his continual killing by starvation and murder thousands of Iraqis which obviously was OK with you!

People like me do not do not believe in starting wars and killing people unless there is a threat to our national security. Your argument does not meet that threshold or come close. People like you are for killing people on trumped up charges and when charges are found to be false go around digging up convenient excuses to cover the original lies.



HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Of course I serious. All Saddam had to do was certify. He didn't.

The only outstanding issue in March 2003 was thev1990's unilateral destruction by Iraq without UN observation of VX and other chemical wespons. That was being addressed when Bush, not Iraq, decided to end the peaceful process and started a war.



HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Thanks to the Liberation of Iraq and in spite of traitors like you and these following DEMOCRATS who HELPED prolong the war.... But you ignore these benefits, lives saved and ecology restored!

You are arguing that US combat troops busting into Iraqi homes brandishing their weapons does not terrorize women and children living there. You are a fool if you are. Part of Petraeus' COIN strategy was to end US troops entering Iraqi homes and confronting women and children. It was best to let Iraqi troops do that.

You are arguing that the women and children and old men were not shot dead at Haditha? The students in the taxi were not shot dead execution style? There was no attempt to cover up that mass killing - some at point blank range?

What is wrong with you?

No what is wrong is idiots like you and these traitors that gave all the ammunition as if they handed out bullets to kill our soldiers!
Idiots like you don't seem to comprehend words have meanings!
Calling our troops terrorists, cold blooded killers helped the TERRORISTS as it certainly NEVER NEVER applied to the majority of US Troops that died protecting children! You idiots like Murtha,Obama you say those terrible words for political purposes ONLY! These words are used by the terrorists to recruit more and here is a study that proved it!

"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?
THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT

Actually partisan hacks like this who lie about the meaning of what was said, give our enemies comfort.

But NOT ONE conservative "HACK" would EVER EVER EVER call our soldiers "terrorists" or "cold blood killers".. or methodically and all the time "air raiding villages killing civilians" which is so f...king ironic because today the person who said that ORDERED military to methodically and all the time air raid ISIS held villages killing civilians"!!!!

You can't back that garbage up. Show us a link of villages being hit with airstrikes. Show us a link of US Airmen and forces targeting villages. You are accusing those defending us at the risk of their lives with committing atrocities and war crimes. Back it up.

HEY READ CAREFULLY!!!
I never accused them these DEMOCRATS including the President DID!!!

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 "

 

[Camp]

HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159 You are ignoring my reply to that. Any issues of starvation or whatever domestic issues could be dealt with after the disarmament issues were settled. Bush signed on to UN 1441 and did not invade Iraq over starvation or genocide. He claimed Iraq was hiding WMD from the 1441 inspection regime. That was not true.





HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159 People like me do not do not believe in starting wars and killing people unless there is a threat to our national security. Your argument does not meet that threshold or come close. People like you are for killing people on trumped up charges and when charges are found to be false go around digging up convenient excuses to cover the original lies.



HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159 The only outstanding issue in March 2003 was thev1990's unilateral destruction by Iraq without UN observation of VX and other chemical wespons. That was being addressed when Bush, not Iraq, decided to end the peaceful process and started a war.



HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159 You are arguing that US combat troops busting into Iraqi homes brandishing their weapons does not terrorize women and children living there. You are a fool if you are. Part of Petraeus' COIN strategy was to end US troops entering Iraqi homes and confronting women and children. It was best to let Iraqi troops do that.

You are arguing that the women and children and old men were not shot dead at Haditha? The students in the taxi were not shot dead execution style? There was no attempt to cover up that mass killing - some at point blank range?

What is wrong with you?

No what is wrong is idiots like you and these traitors that gave all the ammunition as if they handed out bullets to kill our soldiers!
Idiots like you don't seem to comprehend words have meanings!
Calling our troops terrorists, cold blooded killers helped the TERRORISTS as it certainly NEVER NEVER applied to the majority of US Troops that died protecting children! You idiots like Murtha,Obama you say those terrible words for political purposes ONLY! These words are used by the terrorists to recruit more and here is a study that proved it!

"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?
THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT

Actually partisan hacks like this who lie about the meaning of what was said, give our enemies comfort.

But NOT ONE conservative "HACK" would EVER EVER EVER call our soldiers "terrorists" or "cold blood killers".. or methodically and all the time "air raiding villages killing civilians" which is so f...king ironic because today the person who said that ORDERED military to methodically and all the time air raid ISIS held villages killing civilians"!!!!

You can't back that garbage up. Show us a link of villages being hit with airstrikes. Show us a link of US Airmen and forces targeting villages. You are accusing those defending us at the risk of their lives with committing atrocities and war crimes. Back it up.

HEY READ CAREFULLY!!!
I never accused them these DEMOCRATS including the President DID!!!

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 "

You accused the United States and American airmen of "methodically and all the air raid ISIS held villages killing civilians"!!!! (your exclamation points following your quote).
There is enough anti American propaganda being put out all over the world. It is disgusting when Americans promote that propaganda while our forces are actively involved in combat. Nothing could be more anti American. Back peddling back to what elected officials said years ago during Congressional hearings has nothing to do with what is going on at the present time in the efforts to degrade ISIS. You made an anti American comment and have accused the airmen currently in combat over Iraq and Syria of following orders to target villages without regard to civilian presence and possibility of their becoming collateral casualties. Back it up.

 

[BlindBoo]

HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159 You are ignoring my reply to that. Any issues of starvation or whatever domestic issues could be dealt with after the disarmament issues were settled. Bush signed on to UN 1441 and did not invade Iraq over starvation or genocide. He claimed Iraq was hiding WMD from the 1441 inspection regime. That was not true.





HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159 People like me do not do not believe in starting wars and killing people unless there is a threat to our national security. Your argument does not meet that threshold or come close. People like you are for killing people on trumped up charges and when charges are found to be false go around digging up convenient excuses to cover the original lies.



HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159 The only outstanding issue in March 2003 was thev1990's unilateral destruction by Iraq without UN observation of VX and other chemical wespons. That was being addressed when Bush, not Iraq, decided to end the peaceful process and started a war.



HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159 You are arguing that US combat troops busting into Iraqi homes brandishing their weapons does not terrorize women and children living there. You are a fool if you are. Part of Petraeus' COIN strategy was to end US troops entering Iraqi homes and confronting women and children. It was best to let Iraqi troops do that.

You are arguing that the women and children and old men were not shot dead at Haditha? The students in the taxi were not shot dead execution style? There was no attempt to cover up that mass killing - some at point blank range?

What is wrong with you?

No what is wrong is idiots like you and these traitors that gave all the ammunition as if they handed out bullets to kill our soldiers!
Idiots like you don't seem to comprehend words have meanings!
Calling our troops terrorists, cold blooded killers helped the TERRORISTS as it certainly NEVER NEVER applied to the majority of US Troops that died protecting children! You idiots like Murtha,Obama you say those terrible words for political purposes ONLY! These words are used by the terrorists to recruit more and here is a study that proved it!

"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?
THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT

Actually partisan hacks like this who lie about the meaning of what was said, give our enemies comfort.

But NOT ONE conservative "HACK" would EVER EVER EVER call our soldiers "terrorists" or "cold blood killers".. or methodically and all the time "air raiding villages killing civilians" which is so f...king ironic because today the person who said that ORDERED military to methodically and all the time air raid ISIS held villages killing civilians"!!!!

That's a different topic however, you lie about what was said all the time.......

Interesting point.."you lie about what was said all the time"...

How can anyone lie about when
Murtha said:""Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” Did Murtha say that or not? Am I lying about that?

Six of the eight Marines originally accused in the case had their charges dismissed by military judges,
and a seventh was cleared of criminal wrongdoing.
Marine pleads guilty ending final Haditha trial Reuters
"OUR TROOPS"??? ALL OUR TROOPS? ALL THE TIME???

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
John Kerry on the U.S. Military The Patriot Post
So I LIED when Kerry SAID ALL AMERICAN SOLDIERS go into homes terrorizing (i.e. terrorists!) kids and children"... I LIED about what
Kerry thinks about our military that ALL AMERICAN soldiers are terrorists???
See the enemy doesn't parse words. Don't provide "context"!
They do just as traitors do repeat these phrases that feeds the perceptions America is bad. Soldiers are terrorists. Thanks to people like you who also believe that!

And finally this Harvard study shows that "words" have meaning!!
FACT:LOOK at this Harvard study found here THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT
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.
STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. (wouldn't you conclude the next president accusing the US military of methodically and systematically air raiding villages killing civilians.. dissent???) We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

You take partial quotes and twist it into a lie that not even a terrorist would believe, in fact only ideologues such as your self would believe your tripe.


Murtha, a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said at a news conference Wednesday that sources within the military have told him that an internal investigation will show that "there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Military officials say Marine Corp photos taken immediately after the incident show many of the victims were shot at close range, in the head and chest, execution-style. One photo shows a mother and young child bent over on the floor as if in prayer, shot dead, said the officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity because the investigation hasn't been completed.

One military official says it appears the civilians were deliberately killed by the Marines, who were outraged at the death of their fellow Marine.

He said U.S. forces were under undue pressure in Iraq because of poor planning and allocation of resources by the Bush administration.

Murtha Marines Killed Iraqi Civilians In Cold Blood