It's about time it was said

[Trajan]

**** you, 14. The war was sold on the premise of WMD and an immenent attack using them. It was a lie from the start. Bush and Cheney knew it at prior to the invasion. We were lied into being the aggressor in a war of choice.

And then Bush committed economic suicide for the nation with a tax cut in the midst of a war. In the meantime, Bush let the mastermind of the murder of 3000 Americans on American soil get away. That is a record to be proud of? I guess Conservatives love liars and incompetants.

incompetence does not equal, prove or mean dishonesty.

No, and is far more dangerous than dishonesty.

I agree but that doesn't buttress your point, bush screwed up in the first 3 years, no argument there, Bremer and the policy he pursed was harmful and used up valuable time.

For an intelligently dishonest person is going to be sure that he is in the clear when the results of his dishonesty is revealed.

A dishonest person that is also incompetant can screw up things beyond belief.

Witness the economy and the results in Afghanistan and Iraq.

well, I fault Bush for a lot, but, I have yet to see evidence that he lied.

 

[MikeK]

I have been waiting for years for someone to prove that Bush actually lied. It's really getting old.

In order to prove that Bush lied it will be necessary for the Attorney General to assign a competent and motivated prosecutor, such as Vincent Bugliosi, to conduct an in-depth investigation including interrogation under oath of every member of the Bush Administration who had anything to do with organizing or planning the Iraq invasion. And if you would like to know precisely how Mr. Bugliosi would go about making such a case I recommend that you read his excellent book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. You can get it from Amazon but somehow I don't have the impression that you do much reading.

Because President Obama is first and foremost a self-serving tinhorn politician who wouldn't do anything to antagonize or offend the corporatist kingmakers who enabled his rise he has no intention of doing any such thing. So jingoistic, deluded right-wing dupes like you are able to call for something you know will never happen.

Another way to prove that George Bush is a lying war criminal would be to arrest him and turn him over to the World Court in The Hague -- where he and his accomplice, Donald Rumsfeld, already stand accused of crimes for which they could be hanged.

As for those of us who are not partisan but who are equipped with the minimal reasoning skill required to recognize that the Iraq invasion was facilitated by fabrication and conspiracy, every bit of which was organized and promoted by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, we are quite frankly amazed at how un-American those brainwashed Bush supporters who think of themselves as good Americans really are.

 

[Rinata]

I understand your mentally challenged and all and I really hate to take advantage of that fact. But huh... there were WMDS found in Iraq back in '03 and '04. I posted the links once already. Here's a website I believe you idiots use, so I'll use it.


Saddam's WMD have been found. New evidence unveils chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic arms.

The idiots that use it are conservatives!!! You big dope. In fact they are the people that claimed President Obama's birth certificate was a forgery!!! Are you nuts???? No self respecting liberal would frequent that rag.

This is what I don't understand about you left wing loons. You dismiss the article because of the website it was taken from and not once addressing the content of the article. Read the damn article and then produce an intelligent argument based on what you've read. I know it's not an easy thing for you idiot liberals to do, but please try.

You are just amazing. You provide an article that you want us to read and comment on, and then say, "it's a website I believe you idiots use." Are you really stupid enough to think any liberal is going to respond?? Apparently you are.

 

[antagon]

Where's YOUR graph?

sorry, samson, i know a pretty picture would be more readily digestible for ya, but i dont have a partisan spin-blog like the one i suspect horty sourced his bogus chart from. just imagine one which doesn't subtract discretionary and emergency discretionary expenditure from the budget deficit in the way this one undoubtedly does. it would be one that adds discretionary funding on top of the deficit, similarly to how it effects the debt and the real world.

Well, that IS the purpose of Any graph: to more clearly describe numerical functions and comparisons.

My guess is Your graph doesn't exist because:

1. you don't have the numbers you claim, or

2. because the socialist pinheads that suscribe to Nevell Chaimberlain's Fanclub never made it past Algebra I.

whether or not you can see how neville chamberlain has anything to do with our budget doesn't change the fact that not all pretty graphs portray reality. for simpler americans like yourself who believe the more colorful, the more credible, public accounting practices can easily make the ostensibly lowest deficit of the decade correspond to the highest ever unadjusted YoY increase in the public debt to that point.

reconcile your buddy's blog-derived graph showing about $200-some billion in deficit with treasury direct's record of a $1,017,071,524,650.01 increase in public debt for FY2007.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2009

not all of that $3/4 trillion was related to the wars, but for some, its no coincidence that the surge was that year either.

 

[Samson]

not all of that $3/4 trillion was related to the wars, but for some, its no coincidence that the surge was that year either.

Still don't have anything, huh?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The idiots that use it are conservatives!!! You big dope. In fact they are the people that claimed President Obama's birth certificate was a forgery!!! Are you nuts???? No self respecting liberal would frequent that rag.

This is what I don't understand about you left wing loons. You dismiss the article because of the website it was taken from and not once addressing the content of the article. Read the damn article and then produce an intelligent argument based on what you've read. I know it's not an easy thing for you idiot liberals to do, but please try.

You are just amazing. You provide an article that you want us to read and comment on, and then say, "it's a website I believe you idiots use." Are you really stupid enough to think any liberal is going to respond?? Apparently you are.

The thing is you idiots won't bother to read anything from a site you deem right wing and vice versa and that is ignorance at its finest. I on the other hand read all material from all websites and present an argument based on the facts or lack thereof that's been presented. In case you haven't noticed all media has bias, but it takes a critical thinker to decipher what is BS and what is factual. That's a skill set that many of you liberals do not possess.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I have been waiting for years for someone to prove that Bush actually lied. It's really getting old.

In order to prove that Bush lied it will be necessary for the Attorney General to assign a competent and motivated prosecutor, such as Vincent Bugliosi, to conduct an in-depth investigation including interrogation under oath of every member of the Bush Administration who had anything to do with organizing or planning the Iraq invasion. And if you would like to know precisely how Mr. Bugliosi would go about making such a case I recommend that you read his excellent book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. You can get it from Amazon but somehow I don't have the impression that you do much reading.

Because President Obama is first and foremost a self-serving tinhorn politician who wouldn't do anything to antagonize or offend the corporatist kingmakers who enabled his rise he has no intention of doing any such thing. So jingoistic, deluded right-wing dupes like you are able to call for something you know will never happen.

Another way to prove that George Bush is a lying war criminal would be to arrest him and turn him over to the World Court in The Hague -- where he and his accomplice, Donald Rumsfeld, already stand accused of crimes for which they could be hanged.

As for those of us who are not partisan but who are equipped with the minimal reasoning skill required to recognize that the Iraq invasion was facilitated by fabrication and conspiracy, every bit of which was organized and promoted by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, we are quite frankly amazed at how un-American those brainwashed Bush supporters who think of themselves as good Americans really are.

All I ask is that if you or any one else is going to call the President of the United States a Liar, then please have some actual proof of such a claim. As of yet there is no such proof. And your rantings about the Hague mean nothing.

And by the way, your little hidden dig that I don't read is very infantile. If you want to insult me, please just come out and say it. Your impressions mean nothing.....

 

[hortysir]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 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

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Halfbright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[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

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Halfbright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

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

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

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

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

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

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

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. 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..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

This post will be ignored by the Bush-hating libturds

 

[SFC Ollie]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 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

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Halfbright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[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

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Halfbright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

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

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

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

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

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

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

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. 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..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

This post will be ignored by the Bush-hating libturds

Of course.

 

[antagon]

not all of that $3/4 trillion was related to the wars, but for some, its no coincidence that the surge was that year either.

Still don't have anything, huh?

just an excess of $700,000,000,000 not accounted for in the chart and the fact that supplementary budgets should be added to the deficit not subtracted. thats how debt accual actually works. what do you got?

 

[Rinata]

This is what I don't understand about you left wing loons. You dismiss the article because of the website it was taken from and not once addressing the content of the article. Read the damn article and then produce an intelligent argument based on what you've read. I know it's not an easy thing for you idiot liberals to do, but please try.

You are just amazing. You provide an article that you want us to read and comment on, and then say, "it's a website I believe you idiots use." Are you really stupid enough to think any liberal is going to respond?? Apparently you are.

The thing is you idiots won't bother to read anything from a site you deem right wing and vice versa and that is ignorance at its finest. I on the other hand read all material from all websites and present an argument based on the facts or lack thereof that's been presented. In case you haven't noticed all media has bias, but it takes a critical thinker to decipher what is BS and what is factual. That's a skill set that many of you liberals do not possess.

It sounds like you are talking about right wingers, not left. And let me tell you something. You have no idea what anybody reads or doesn't read. So shut up about what you don't know. And quit bragging about how informed you are. Even if you did read everything, you sure are not comprehending it.

 

[Rinata]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 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

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Halfbright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[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

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Halfbright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

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

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

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

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

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

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

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. 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..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

This post will be ignored by the Bush-hating libturds

Can't imagine why, you idiot.

 

[WillowTree]

You are just amazing. You provide an article that you want us to read and comment on, and then say, "it's a website I believe you idiots use." Are you really stupid enough to think any liberal is going to respond?? Apparently you are.

The thing is you idiots won't bother to read anything from a site you deem right wing and vice versa and that is ignorance at its finest. I on the other hand read all material from all websites and present an argument based on the facts or lack thereof that's been presented. In case you haven't noticed all media has bias, but it takes a critical thinker to decipher what is BS and what is factual. That's a skill set that many of you liberals do not possess.

It sounds like you are talking about right wingers, not left. And let me tell you something. You have no idea what anybody reads or doesn't read. So shut up about what you don't know. And quit bragging about how informed you are. Even if you did read everything, you sure are not comprehending it.

isn't that what you fucktards hammered Mrs. Palin on? On what she read? Asswipe.

 

[maineman]

my thoughts in RED

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 [no claims of WMD stockpiles here]

"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 [claims of programs are not claims of stockpiles]

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 [no claims of WMD stockpiles here]


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 [having some chemical and biological weapons in the 90's is not synonymous with stockpiles still existing in the next century]

"[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
["including air and missile strikes"... didn't say SHIT about invasion, conquest, and occupation]

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 [engaging in development of weapons is not the same as actually being able to MAKE weapons or to STOCKPILE weapons]

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999[no claims of WMD stockpiles here]


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001 [programs ain't stockpiles]

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 [doesn't ever claim that those building project ever got completed though, does he?]

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 [what can I say...it's Gore... everybody knows he's a windbag. Interesting that his opinions about global warming are routinely villified by the right, but all of a sudden, he's a expert on Iraqi military programs. ]

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." [ditto]
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 [seeking and developing is not synonymous with possessing stockpiles.]

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 [and then, in November of 2002, Bush was able to get Saddam to allow inspectors BACK into Iraq... and what did they find? NADA]

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 [and as we know, it was NOT necessary to use force to disarm Saddam... and if Bush had been just a wee bit patient, he would have heard Blix tell him precisely that.]

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 [working to develop is not synonymous with possessing stockpiles]

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 [because he couldn't disarm himself of WMD's if he didn't have any to begin with ]

"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 [again working to rebuild does not constitute owning stockpiles...and she was just plain wrong when she said that Saddam had given aid and comfort to AQ members... that was not true.]

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 [developing the capacity to produce does not equate to actually having that capacity or of having USED that capacity to produce stockpiles]

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. 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..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 [if we'd let Blix do his job, we would have known in short order, that we did NOT need to disarm Saddam. oops.]

First... I think it is important to realize that NONE of those democrats were enthusiastically calling for an invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq. Second, I think it is important to remember that, when the use of force resolution was passed by congress, a majority of the democrats in congress voted AGAINST the resolution.

Finally...The rush to war was driven by combining two separate themes. One, that Saddam did indeed have stockpiles of WMD's (maybe even nukes! YIKES!!) and two, that Saddam was buddy buddy with Osama and he was capable of giving him one of those WMD's (a nuke, maybe?) and ANY MINUTE we could see a mushroom cloud over an American city. A pan arab secular baathist middle eastern leader would NEVER give a weapon of mass destruction - even if he HAD any, which he did not - to a radical wahhabist extremist whose PRIMARY goal was the downfall of secular arab nation states in the middle east. Frightened sheeple across the spectrum in America were SCARED by their pResident into supporting this STUPID STUPID war, imho.

 

[SFC Ollie]

So many in total denial. Amazing.

 

[eots]

So many in total denial. Amazing.

yes indeed, they still are under the illusion this is not a one party state

 

[DiveCon]

So many in total denial. Amazing.

yes indeed, they still are under the illusion this is not a one party state

speaking of someone in denial
LOL

 

[maineman]

So many in total denial. Amazing.

you have some issue with my post, why not show some balls and actually debate any of my assertions, sarge?

novel idea.

 

[Samson]

So many in total denial. Amazing.

you have some issue with my post, why not show some balls and actually debate any of my assertions, sarge?

novel idea.

my thoughts in RED

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 [no claims of WMD stockpiles here]

"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 [claims of programs are not claims of stockpiles]

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 [no claims of WMD stockpiles here]


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 [having some chemical and biological weapons in the 90's is not synonymous with stockpiles still existing in the next century]

"[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
["including air and missile strikes"... didn't say SHIT about invasion, conquest, and occupation]

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 [engaging in development of weapons is not the same as actually being able to MAKE weapons or to STOCKPILE weapons]

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999[no claims of WMD stockpiles here]


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001 [programs ain't stockpiles]

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 [doesn't ever claim that those building project ever got completed though, does he?]

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 [what can I say...it's Gore... everybody knows he's a windbag. Interesting that his opinions about global warming are routinely villified by the right, but all of a sudden, he's a expert on Iraqi military programs. ]

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." [ditto]
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 [seeking and developing is not synonymous with possessing stockpiles.]

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 [and then, in November of 2002, Bush was able to get Saddam to allow inspectors BACK into Iraq... and what did they find? NADA]

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 [and as we know, it was NOT necessary to use force to disarm Saddam... and if Bush had been just a wee bit patient, he would have heard Blix tell him precisely that.]

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 [working to develop is not synonymous with possessing stockpiles]

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 [because he couldn't disarm himself of WMD's if he didn't have any to begin with ]

"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 [again working to rebuild does not constitute owning stockpiles...and she was just plain wrong when she said that Saddam had given aid and comfort to AQ members... that was not true.]

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 [developing the capacity to produce does not equate to actually having that capacity or of having USED that capacity to produce stockpiles]

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. 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..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 [if we'd let Blix do his job, we would have known in short order, that we did NOT need to disarm Saddam. oops.]

First... I think it is important to realize that NONE of those democrats were enthusiastically calling for an invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq. Second, I think it is important to remember that, when the use of force resolution was passed by congress, a majority of the democrats in congress voted AGAINST the resolution.

Finally...The rush to war was driven by combining two separate themes. One, that Saddam did indeed have stockpiles of WMD's (maybe even nukes! YIKES!!) and two, that Saddam was buddy buddy with Osama and he was capable of giving him one of those WMD's (a nuke, maybe?) and ANY MINUTE we could see a mushroom cloud over an American city. A pan arab secular baathist middle eastern leader would NEVER give a weapon of mass destruction - even if he HAD any, which he did not - to a radical wahhabist extremist whose PRIMARY goal was the downfall of secular arab nation states in the middle east. Frightened sheeple across the spectrum in America were SCARED by their pResident into supporting this STUPID STUPID war, imho.

"rush to war?"

Rather than go through each point, I hope you forgive me for wondering if you and I haven't already settled many of these points.

Justification for invading Iraq is based on much more than a simple question of WMD's presence or absence. I've listed the historical context, and my allusion to the historical precedent for ignoring dangers of dictators willing to kill their own citizens seems to have gone over the many pointed heads. Do I need to spell it out for those that don't know who Neville Chamberlain was?

Furthermore you have NO IDEA was Saddam might have done with nerve gas. You can PRETEND to have known now, only through the luxury of the fact that Saddam no longer exists.

 

[boedicca]

Considering that we know Saddam had invaded Kuwait and we know he used chemical weapons on the Kurds, it's a rational prediction that he would continue to be violently aggressive.

Just sayin'.