Just How Bad Did The Republicans Want To Invade Iraq?

[Mudda]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

good grief.

You got a good reason for destroying Iraq?

 

[Iceweasel]

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

You are 20 years behind schedule. The inspectors were denied access many times AND they were being inspected for a reason. Either grow a brain and look stuff up or quit proving what an idiot you are.

 

[Stephanie]

Now lets get back into the HERE and NOW. this was a comment from an article on that sham they called a debate. they are pushing for Trump here, but I like what they said before the endorsement. I actually agree with them and it's been hard to support the Republicans anymore. But, I can still stomach them over the Progressives/Socialist where people like, Obama, Hillary, Bernie comes from. vote them out come 2016

SNIP:
Proud2BAmerican • 12 hours ago
Exactly. . .Where were the GOP leaders when Obama pulled out of Iraq, retreated in Afghanistan, Killed Libyan Leader Muammer Gaddafi, Ousted Egypt's Head and installed Muslim Brotherhood (CAIR's buddy), let Ambassador Stevens be killed without US retaliation, Giving Nukes to Iran, and the list goes on. . .

If someone does not see a pattern here, then they are stupid beyond help.

Demon-c-RATs selling out our Country and GOP supporting them. (BTW, I thought Bernie Sanders was an Independent so why is he in Democrat debate? Change his stays to Democrat. . enough con's! and lies!)

Time to get tough, Time to make America Great Again, Time for Trump.

From the article here:
WSJ Pundit on Dem Debate: "Remarkable Display of Unintelligible Garbage Rhetoric" (VIDEO) - The Gateway Pundit

someone asked a good question later in the comments:
If Bernie is an Independent why is he debating with the Democrat? think about that one.

 

[Mudda]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

You new here? That lie was dubunked over 10 years ago. Try to keep up in the future.

So what was the valid reason to destroy Iraq?

 

[Iceweasel]

Considering how chummy Rumsfeld and Saddam were it should come as no surprise when Saddam stopped playing ball Rummy saw the writing on the wall and moved to correct his colossal fuckup.

I heard that! Plus......all the Republicans hated Saddam Hussein for attempting to assassinate Bush's Daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

No.....what you're saying is that Republicans wanted war. This wasn't over a fail assassination attempt.

What Iraq was about was stopping Islamic radicals from having a base of operations in the middle-east from which they could attack us.
Well, thanks to Obama.....ISIS has one now.

Iraq was about oil and the global balance of power. You don't get to invade Kuwait and disrupt that balance.

That was the first Gulf War. And the Americans had practically invited Saddam to invade Kuwait. And neither Iraq War had anything to do with global balance of power, since Iraq had no power in the world.

Practically invited? What do those words mean to the shortbus passengers?

 

[Freewill]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

As did these Democrats!



"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 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."
Madeleine Albright, 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.

"We 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 Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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 the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away 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 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.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 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.

"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.


Watch thisfor pre-war quotes by several Democrats.

Watch thisfor pre-war quotes by John Kerry.

Yeah but, liberal democrats were conservatives then.

 

[Campbell]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

There was only one and it existed in the warped mind of the draft dodger George W. Bush. Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate his daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

 

[Mudda]

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

You are 20 years behind schedule. The inspectors were denied access many times AND they were being inspected for a reason. Either grow a brain and look stuff up or quit proving what an idiot you are.

So what was the valid reason to destroy Iraq? Did they find any WMD? No? But you knew that already.

 

[Mudda]

Considering how chummy Rumsfeld and Saddam were it should come as no surprise when Saddam stopped playing ball Rummy saw the writing on the wall and moved to correct his colossal fuckup.

I heard that! Plus......all the Republicans hated Saddam Hussein for attempting to assassinate Bush's Daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

No.....what you're saying is that Republicans wanted war. This wasn't over a fail assassination attempt.

What Iraq was about was stopping Islamic radicals from having a base of operations in the middle-east from which they could attack us.
Well, thanks to Obama.....ISIS has one now.

Iraq was about oil and the global balance of power. You don't get to invade Kuwait and disrupt that balance.

That was the first Gulf War. And the Americans had practically invited Saddam to invade Kuwait. And neither Iraq War had anything to do with global balance of power, since Iraq had no power in the world.

Practically invited? What do those words mean to the shortbus passengers?

The Iraqi ambassador at the time (some women I forget her name) told Saddam that the US likely wouldn't do anything if Iraq invaded Kuwait.

 

[Slyhunter]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

You mean the WMD Iraq hid over in Syria while we ***** footed with the UN trying to get them to go along with us. I think Bush should've gone in months earlier.

Saddam thumbed his nose at us. He didn't take us seriously. He takes us seriously now doesn't he.

 

[Mudda]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

You mean the WMD Iraq hid over in Syria while we ***** footed with the UN trying to get them to go along with us. I think Bush should've gone in months earlier.

Saddam thumbed his nose at us. He didn't take us seriously. He takes us seriously now doesn't he.

The WMD in Syria are called Syrian WMD. So you're saying that GW invaded the wrong country?

 

[Iceweasel]

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

You are 20 years behind schedule. The inspectors were denied access many times AND they were being inspected for a reason. Either grow a brain and look stuff up or quit proving what an idiot you are.

So what was the valid reason to destroy Iraq? Did they find any WMD? No? But you knew that already.

When was it destroyed? This is the year 2015, all your questions were answered decades ago.

 

[Iceweasel]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

You mean the WMD Iraq hid over in Syria while we ***** footed with the UN trying to get them to go along with us. I think Bush should've gone in months earlier.

Saddam thumbed his nose at us. He didn't take us seriously. He takes us seriously now doesn't he.

The WMD in Syria are called Syrian WMD. So you're saying that GW invaded the wrong country?

And you know they didn't come from Iraq...how?

 

[healthmyths]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

Well tell these Democrats that because THEY were clamoring for removal of Saddam BEFORE 9/11!


"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 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."
Madeleine Albright, 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.

"We 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 Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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 the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away 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 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.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 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.

"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.


Watch thisfor pre-war quotes by several Democrats.

Watch thisfor pre-war quotes by John Kerry.

Plus obviously you never cared about these starving children.

Published: December 1, 1995 UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30— As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

So from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children STARVED all because Saddam would NOT sign a simple document verifying he had NO WMDs!

Do you comprehend the situation if Saddam had not been removed by the "Liberation of Iraq" in 2003 nearly 12 more years would pass and at
an average of 144,000 starving children because SADDAM wouldn't sign.. over 2,304,000 children would be dead!
Of course YOU don't care. These are Iraqi children.

But you obviously KNOW these facts but ignore them because YOU don't care for starving children.

Remember .... All Saddam would have to do is agree he didn't have WMDs and the embargo would be lifted, children wouldn't starve and
there would be no Liberation of Iraq! So why did Saddam persist in NOT certifying?
On Thursday, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed support for ways to alleviate burdens on the Iraqi people. "We should support any attempts that will ease the impact of sanctions on the population and allow the people to have normal lives," he said.

Full sanctions will not be lifted until U.N. inspectors certify that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed. For nearly 2 1/2 years, Baghdad has barred inspectors.
Lift Iraq embargo, Britain suggests

 

[Iceweasel]

I heard that! Plus......all the Republicans hated Saddam Hussein for attempting to assassinate Bush's Daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

No.....what you're saying is that Republicans wanted war. This wasn't over a fail assassination attempt.

What Iraq was about was stopping Islamic radicals from having a base of operations in the middle-east from which they could attack us.
Well, thanks to Obama.....ISIS has one now.

Iraq was about oil and the global balance of power. You don't get to invade Kuwait and disrupt that balance.

That was the first Gulf War. And the Americans had practically invited Saddam to invade Kuwait. And neither Iraq War had anything to do with global balance of power, since Iraq had no power in the world.

Practically invited? What do those words mean to the shortbus passengers?

The Iraqi ambassador at the time (some women I forget her name) told Saddam that the US likely wouldn't do anything if Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Sounds pretty vague, hardly a reason for an invasion. But go ahead and support the assertion.

 

[Campbell]

Considering how chummy Rumsfeld and Saddam were it should come as no surprise when Saddam stopped playing ball Rummy saw the writing on the wall and moved to correct his colossal fuckup.

I heard that! Plus......all the Republicans hated Saddam Hussein for attempting to assassinate Bush's Daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

No.....what you're saying is that Republicans wanted war. This wasn't over a fail assassination attempt.

What Iraq was about was stopping Islamic radicals from having a base of operations in the middle-east from which they could attack us.
Well, thanks to Obama.....ISIS has one now.

LMAO!!! What are they going to do?? Send their 25,000 troops aboard one of their naval fleets. Are you shittin' me? We have a military more powerful than the next ten most powerful countries combined and only the goddam Republicans want to invade a faction which barely can exist 10,000 miles from here. There's two things the Republicans are good at.....warmongering and lying.

 

[Mudda]

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

You are 20 years behind schedule. The inspectors were denied access many times AND they were being inspected for a reason. Either grow a brain and look stuff up or quit proving what an idiot you are.

So what was the valid reason to destroy Iraq? Did they find any WMD? No? But you knew that already.

When was it destroyed? This is the year 2015, all your questions were answered decades ago.

Ah, a deflector. It's ok, I knew you had no answer.

 

[Freewill]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

You new here? That lie was dubunked over 10 years ago. Try to keep up in the future.

So what was the valid reason to destroy Iraq?

Here is something the left seems to have forgotten:

Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. policy shifted in 1998 when the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" after Iraq terminated its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August. The act made it official U.S. policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power..." although it also made clear that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces."[15][16]This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which made no mention of regime change.[17]

One month after the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act," the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. The campaign's express rationale was to hamper the Hussein government's ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. national security personnel also reportedly hoped it would help weaken Hussein's grip on power.[18]

So as usual a democrat doesn't get the support of congress yet acts any way. At least Bush got the OK from Mrs. Clinton before removing the Butcher of Baghdad from power.

 

[Mudda]

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

You mean the WMD Iraq hid over in Syria while we ***** footed with the UN trying to get them to go along with us. I think Bush should've gone in months earlier.

Saddam thumbed his nose at us. He didn't take us seriously. He takes us seriously now doesn't he.

The WMD in Syria are called Syrian WMD. So you're saying that GW invaded the wrong country?

And you know they didn't come from Iraq...how?

And you know that Jesus didn't put them there...how?

 

[Freewill]

Considering how chummy Rumsfeld and Saddam were it should come as no surprise when Saddam stopped playing ball Rummy saw the writing on the wall and moved to correct his colossal fuckup.

I heard that! Plus......all the Republicans hated Saddam Hussein for attempting to assassinate Bush's Daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

No.....what you're saying is that Republicans wanted war. This wasn't over a fail assassination attempt.

What Iraq was about was stopping Islamic radicals from having a base of operations in the middle-east from which they could attack us.
Well, thanks to Obama.....ISIS has one now.

LMAO!!! What are they going to do?? Send their 25,000 troops aboard one of their naval fleets. Are you shittin' me? We have a military more powerful than the next ten most powerful combined and only the goddam Republicans want to invade a faction which barely can exist 10,000 miles from here. That's one thing the Republicans are good at.....warmongering.

Helloooooooo. Republicans are not in charge. Syria and Libya and the rise of ISIS is all Obama....thus France is Obama brewed.