Saddam's WMDs Went To Syria, Then Lebanon....

[NYcarbineer]

OMG it never ends.

cons are STILL trying to justify vietraq and the 4,500+ dead that resulted in nothing but enriching defense contractors.

It's the RWnut obsession with never admitting they were ever wrong about anything.

 

[healthmyths]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

The big lie of the Iraq war was the Democrats saying they were lied to.

That's why even when you are right, you are wrong. The debate should have been on our engaging in non-defensive wars, we should not. By picking the right side then turning it into a pissing match with the Republicans, you destroyed the chance to rethink and change bad policy.

The debate about going to war in Iraq was not about whether to selectively engage in a non-defensive war. The whole point of the anger of being lied to is that the war was in fact presented as a defensive war. The population was lied to to convince them that the nation was in grave danger of further 9/11 type attacks from al Qaeda who was being supported and protected by Saddam and Iraq. At the very least, misinformation and cherry picked data was used to convince the American people that Saddam most definitely, without any doubt had WMD's along with an operational working relationship with the 9/11 attackers. Neither turned out to be true.

Before Bush... did you know these Democrats wanted to liberate Iraq in 1998?
It was a Democrat Bill Clinton that started the ball rolling in the Liberation of Iraq by signing the 1998 Liberation of Iraq, or the Congress passes Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)
"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

Obviously TO those totally prescient idiots like YOU!
Of course to the rest of us, NO ONE KNEW on 9/12/2001 or after the Anthrax attacks where they came from but WE DID KNOW based on Democrats before Bush.
To these Democrats to be exact... Saddam was the prime suspect! Of course idiot savants like you knew better! Where were you smarty???

"..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 ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"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
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 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..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
oppressive regime .... 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
"..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
“So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interest of our nation. A vote for it is
not a vote to rush to war. It is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president.”
Hillary Clinton on October 2, 2002:

 

[NYcarbineer]

U.S. intelligence suspects Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction have finally been located.

Unfortunately, getting to them will be nearly impossible for the United States and its allies, because the containers with the strategic materials are not in Iraq.

Satellite photo of hundreds of trucks systematically leaving an Iraqi weapons dump, early 2003.

Instead they are located in Lebanon’s heavily-fortified Bekaa Valley, swarming with Iranian and Syrian forces, and Hizbullah and ex-Iraqi agents, Geostrategy-Direct.com will report in Wednesday’s (Sept. 2, 2003) weekly edition.

U.S. intelligence first identified a stream of tractor-trailer trucks moving from Iraq to Syria to Lebanon in January 2003. The significance of this sighting did not register on the CIA at the time.

U.S. intelligence sources believe the area contains extended-range Scud-based missiles and parts for chemical and biological warheads.

Mutually-lucrative Iraqi-Syrian arms transactions are nothing new. Firas Tlas, son of Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlas, has been the key to Syria’s rogue alliance with Iraq. He and Assad made hundreds of millions of dollars selling weapons, oil and drugs to and from Iraq, according to the May 13, 2003 edition of Geostrategy-Direct.com.

The CIA now believes a multi-million dollar deal between Iraq and Syria provided for the hiding and safekeeping of Saddam’s strategic weapons.

Not surprisingly, U.S. inquiries in Beirut and Syria are being met with little substantive response, U.S. officials said.

http://www.worldtribune.com/2012/12...-saddam-shipped-out-wmd-before-war-and-after/

Gee, isn't it odd that the Bush administration never officially confirmed this as proof that Saddam had WMD's, when they, the administration, were the one entity for whom such proof was most crucial.

lol, this is RW fantasy. Everyone must learn that for every single event of political consequence that happens,

the rightwing propaganda machine will fabricate a version of it that makes conservatives look good.

 

[healthmyths]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

The big lie of the Iraq war was the Democrats saying they were lied to.

That's why even when you are right, you are wrong. The debate should have been on our engaging in non-defensive wars, we should not. By picking the right side then turning it into a pissing match with the Republicans, you destroyed the chance to rethink and change bad policy.

No, the big lie is saying that the Democrats were just as guilty for getting us into Iraq as the GOP.

It was a Democrat Bill Clinton that started the ball rolling in the Liberation of Iraq by signing the 1998 Liberation of Iraq, or the Congress passes Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq "
"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling . "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
Plus account for these 32 democrats insistence Saddam be removed?
"..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 ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"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
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 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..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
oppressive regime .... 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
"..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
“So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interest of our nation. A vote for it is
not a vote to rush to war. It is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president.”
Hillary Clinton on October 2, 2002:

 

[kaz]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

The big lie of the Iraq war was the Democrats saying they were lied to.

That's why even when you are right, you are wrong. The debate should have been on our engaging in non-defensive wars, we should not. By picking the right side then turning it into a pissing match with the Republicans, you destroyed the chance to rethink and change bad policy.

So you are in favor OF not being involved in any treaties, agreements, SEATO,NATO,UN,etc?
You think the USA should be a strict go it alone, stop ALL relations with other countries?

I usually get that sort of ridiculous polar choice from liberals. Bad hair day, myths?

 

[Dot Com]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

The big lie of the Iraq war was the Democrats saying they were lied to.

That's why even when you are right, you are wrong. The debate should have been on our engaging in non-defensive wars, we should not. By picking the right side then turning it into a pissing match with the Republicans, you destroyed the chance to rethink and change bad policy.

No, the big lie is saying that the Democrats were just as guilty for getting us into Iraq as the GOP.

yep, that neocon plant was in the pentagon feeding *cough* "raw" intel to Dubya's/Cheney's war room.

 

[irosie91]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

The big lie of the Iraq war was the Democrats saying they were lied to.

That's why even when you are right, you are wrong. The debate should have been on our engaging in non-defensive wars, we should not. By picking the right side then turning it into a pissing match with the Republicans, you destroyed the chance to rethink and change bad policy.

The debate about going to war in Iraq was not about whether to selectively engage in a non-defensive war. The whole point of the anger of being lied to is that the war was in fact presented as a defensive war. The population was lied to to convince them that the nation was in grave danger of further 9/11 type attacks from al Qaeda who was being supported and protected by Saddam and Iraq. At the very least, misinformation and cherry picked data was used to convince the American people that Saddam most definitely, without any doubt had WMD's along with an operational working relationship with the 9/11 attackers. Neither turned out to be true.

where were you back then? I was alive and kicking------and never heard or read anything suggesting that your hero the Baathist pig---Sadaam HAD NUKEAR BOMPS or had
anything to do with 9-11. Not being an idiot----I did already know that SADAAM supported other acts of terrorism ----world wide. He was definitely a TERRORIST'S FAVE

In fact Saddaam was already a big time bastard way back in the 60s ------I met a friend of his------One M. MEHDI-----
a slimy agent of Baathist filth in the USA -----

 

[zeke]

Gee, isn't it odd that the Bush administration never officially confirmed this as proof that Saddam had WMD's, when they, the administration, were the one entity for whom such proof was most crucial.

lol, this is RW fantasy. Everyone must learn that for every single event of political consequence that happens,

the rightwing propaganda machine will fabricate a version of it that makes conservatives look good.

You really know the Repubs know they fucked up in Iraq when, instead of proudly proclaiming all the great things that were accomplished by invading Iraq, all they can do is go, well look at all the Democrats that did this or that.

Of course these are the very same Democrats that Republicans hate and wouldn't let a Democrat piss on their head if their hair was on fire. Yet these rethugs let the mean mean ole Democrats lead them right into the very war they were trying so hard to avoid.

If their (Republicans war of choice) wasn't so full of misery and death it would be funny as hell to hear this story they are making up.

 

[TooTall]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

You know YOU MAY BE right! Maybe there weren't 576,000 children starved! YOU may be right!
BUT idiots like you keep forgetting... YOU idiots have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight! Idiot!
Do you KNOW how 90% of Americans felt after the 9/11 attack and the anthrax attacks ? You obviously were some where else on the planet but me and 90% of Americans were very very frightened even to open an envelope! Idiot!
So Yes maybe with the luxury of 10 years hindsight there May not have been 576,000 starved children!
BUT YOU idiots that ignored the fact Saddam was a dictator that VIOLATED and Broke the 1991 CEASE FIRE which as it literally means the 1991 Desert Storm had CEASED FIRE meant the LIBERATION of Iraq as Bill Clinton and other Democrats voted for in 1998 had to take place!

YES with the luxury of hindsight... there may not have been 576,000 starving children! Big woo! How many more would have starved if the sanctions hadn't been halted because SAddam was dead?

Invading Iraq didn't bring any starved children back to life, and, more importantly, hunger in a foreign country in and of itself is not a vital interest of the US and therefore not a justifiable cause for sending American soldiers to fight and die by the thousands.

Not according these two and several dozen other leading Democrats.


"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 | Source

"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

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

You know YOU MAY BE right! Maybe there weren't 576,000 children starved! YOU may be right!
BUT idiots like you keep forgetting... YOU idiots have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight! Idiot!
Do you KNOW how 90% of Americans felt after the 9/11 attack and the anthrax attacks ? You obviously were some where else on the planet but me and 90% of Americans were very very frightened even to open an envelope! Idiot!
So Yes maybe with the luxury of 10 years hindsight there May not have been 576,000 starved children!
BUT YOU idiots that ignored the fact Saddam was a dictator that VIOLATED and Broke the 1991 CEASE FIRE which as it literally means the 1991 Desert Storm had CEASED FIRE meant the LIBERATION of Iraq as Bill Clinton and other Democrats voted for in 1998 had to take place!

YES with the luxury of hindsight... there may not have been 576,000 starving children! Big woo! How many more would have starved if the sanctions hadn't been halted because SAddam was dead?

Invading Iraq didn't bring any starved children back to life, and, more importantly, hunger in a foreign country in and of itself is not a vital interest of the US and therefore not a justifiable cause for sending American soldiers to fight and die by the thousands.

Not according these two and several dozen other leading Democrats.


"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 | Source

"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

Remember what happened to those two Democrats when they tried to become president?

 

[healthmyths]

Gee, isn't it odd that the Bush administration never officially confirmed this as proof that Saddam had WMD's, when they, the administration, were the one entity for whom such proof was most crucial.

lol, this is RW fantasy. Everyone must learn that for every single event of political consequence that happens,

the rightwing propaganda machine will fabricate a version of it that makes conservatives look good.

You really know the Repubs know they fucked up in Iraq when, instead of proudly proclaiming all the great things that were accomplished by invading Iraq, all they can do is go, well look at all the Democrats that did this or that.

Of course these are the very same Democrats that Republicans hate and wouldn't let a Democrat piss on their head if their hair was on fire. Yet these rethugs let the mean mean ole Democrats lead them right into the very war they were trying so hard to avoid.

If their (Republicans war of choice) wasn't so full of misery and death it would be funny as hell to hear this story they are making up.

You also notice when the MSM called it "Invasion of Iraq" Instead of what Clinton/Congress created the "1998 Liberation of Iraq" bill was when idiots like
you started believing what these traitor democrat leaders said in propagandizing for the terrorists!

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
remember Kerry EARLIER SAID...
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
oppressive regime .... 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

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.

then 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 "

So of course the terrorists LOVED these terrorist lovers comments that helped kill 1,000s of Iraqis and our troops... all because they wanted political gain!
The above and traitors like you hate our troops, hate our country and think Americans are the worst people in the world!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gee, isn't it odd that the Bush administration never officially confirmed this as proof that Saddam had WMD's, when they, the administration, were the one entity for whom such proof was most crucial.

lol, this is RW fantasy. Everyone must learn that for every single event of political consequence that happens,

the rightwing propaganda machine will fabricate a version of it that makes conservatives look good.

You really know the Repubs know they fucked up in Iraq when, instead of proudly proclaiming all the great things that were accomplished by invading Iraq, all they can do is go, well look at all the Democrats that did this or that.

Of course these are the very same Democrats that Republicans hate and wouldn't let a Democrat piss on their head if their hair was on fire. Yet these rethugs let the mean mean ole Democrats lead them right into the very war they were trying so hard to avoid.

If their (Republicans war of choice) wasn't so full of misery and death it would be funny as hell to hear this story they are making up.

Yes. The Repubs/cons eventually ending up trying to blame Iraq on the Democrats was as close as they could get to admitting the war was a mistake.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

The big lie of the Iraq war was the Democrats saying they were lied to.

That's why even when you are right, you are wrong. The debate should have been on our engaging in non-defensive wars, we should not. By picking the right side then turning it into a pissing match with the Republicans, you destroyed the chance to rethink and change bad policy.

No, the big lie is saying that the Democrats were just as guilty for getting us into Iraq as the GOP.

It was a Democrat Bill Clinton that started the ball rolling in the Liberation of Iraq by signing the 1998 Liberation of Iraq, or the Congress passes Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq "
"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling . "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
Plus account for these 32 democrats insistence Saddam be removed?
"..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 ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"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
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 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..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
oppressive regime .... 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
"..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
“So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interest of our nation. A vote for it is
not a vote to rush to war. It is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president.”
Hillary Clinton on October 2, 2002:

147 Democrats voted against the Iraq War resolution.

7 Republicans voted against it.

You're mentally retarded if you think those 2 numbers represent equal blame.

 

[TooTall]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

You know YOU MAY BE right! Maybe there weren't 576,000 children starved! YOU may be right!
BUT idiots like you keep forgetting... YOU idiots have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight! Idiot!
Do you KNOW how 90% of Americans felt after the 9/11 attack and the anthrax attacks ? You obviously were some where else on the planet but me and 90% of Americans were very very frightened even to open an envelope! Idiot!
So Yes maybe with the luxury of 10 years hindsight there May not have been 576,000 starved children!
BUT YOU idiots that ignored the fact Saddam was a dictator that VIOLATED and Broke the 1991 CEASE FIRE which as it literally means the 1991 Desert Storm had CEASED FIRE meant the LIBERATION of Iraq as Bill Clinton and other Democrats voted for in 1998 had to take place!

YES with the luxury of hindsight... there may not have been 576,000 starving children! Big woo! How many more would have starved if the sanctions hadn't been halted because SAddam was dead?

Invading Iraq didn't bring any starved children back to life, and, more importantly, hunger in a foreign country in and of itself is not a vital interest of the US and therefore not a justifiable cause for sending American soldiers to fight and die by the thousands.

Not according these two and several dozen other leading Democrats.


"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 | Source

"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

Remember what happened to those two Democrats when they tried to become president?

Do you think it was their original position on Iraq or their hypocritical reversal of their position that caused them to lose? And, do you really think either of them are through running for President?

 

[TooTall]

Gee, isn't it odd that the Bush administration never officially confirmed this as proof that Saddam had WMD's, when they, the administration, were the one entity for whom such proof was most crucial.

lol, this is RW fantasy. Everyone must learn that for every single event of political consequence that happens,

the rightwing propaganda machine will fabricate a version of it that makes conservatives look good.

You really know the Repubs know they fucked up in Iraq when, instead of proudly proclaiming all the great things that were accomplished by invading Iraq, all they can do is go, well look at all the Democrats that did this or that.

Of course these are the very same Democrats that Republicans hate and wouldn't let a Democrat piss on their head if their hair was on fire. Yet these rethugs let the mean mean ole Democrats lead them right into the very war they were trying so hard to avoid.

If their (Republicans war of choice) wasn't so full of misery and death it would be funny as hell to hear this story they are making up.

Yes. The Repubs/cons eventually ending up trying to blame Iraq on the Democrats was as close as they could get to admitting the war was a mistake.

All Bush did was take the advice of the leading Democrats that had been there before he showed up. After all, he did go to the Congress and the UN for the authority to enforce the broken cease fire. I realize that Saddam Hussein is a legendary hero to you leftists, but he was a brutal dictator that had and was killing his own people.

 

[healthmyths]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

The big lie of the Iraq war was the Democrats saying they were lied to.

That's why even when you are right, you are wrong. The debate should have been on our engaging in non-defensive wars, we should not. By picking the right side then turning it into a pissing match with the Republicans, you destroyed the chance to rethink and change bad policy.

No, the big lie is saying that the Democrats were just as guilty for getting us into Iraq as the GOP.

It was a Democrat Bill Clinton that started the ball rolling in the Liberation of Iraq by signing the 1998 Liberation of Iraq, or the Congress passes Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq "
"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling . "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
Plus account for these 32 democrats insistence Saddam be removed?
"..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 ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"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
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 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..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
oppressive regime .... 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
"..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
“So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interest of our nation. A vote for it is
not a vote to rush to war. It is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president.”
Hillary Clinton on October 2, 2002:

147 Democrats voted against the Iraq War resolution.

7 Republicans voted against it.

You're mentally retarded if you think those 2 numbers represent equal blame.

 

[healthmyths]

Freedom Agenda - Quotes and Facts on Iraq
Together, we must 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
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, 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."
"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that."

Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
In a Los Angeles Times editorial: "A 'Big Cat' With Nothing to Lose"
February 6, 2003; Page B17

"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."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998

 

[Faun]

Where is the evidence of this news?

News? The linked article is not news. Look close at it. It is a re-posting of an article from 2003. 'News' would be if information came out that supported this decade plus old conspiracy theory. This is a method of a type of dishonest misinforming that works to a limited degree.

The big lie of the Iraq war was the Democrats saying they were lied to.

That's why even when you are right, you are wrong. The debate should have been on our engaging in non-defensive wars, we should not. By picking the right side then turning it into a pissing match with the Republicans, you destroyed the chance to rethink and change bad policy.

The debate about going to war in Iraq was not about whether to selectively engage in a non-defensive war. The whole point of the anger of being lied to is that the war was in fact presented as a defensive war. The population was lied to to convince them that the nation was in grave danger of further 9/11 type attacks from al Qaeda who was being supported and protected by Saddam and Iraq. At the very least, misinformation and cherry picked data was used to convince the American people that Saddam most definitely, without any doubt had WMD's along with an operational working relationship with the 9/11 attackers. Neither turned out to be true.

where were you back then? I was alive and kicking------and never heard or read anything suggesting that your hero the Baathist pig---Sadaam HAD NUKEAR BOMPS or had
anything to do with 9-11. Not being an idiot----I did already know that SADAAM supported other acts of terrorism ----world wide. He was definitely a TERRORIST'S FAVE

In fact Saddaam was already a big time bastard way back in the 60s ------I met a friend of his------One M. MEHDI-----
a slimy agent of Baathist filth in the USA -----

Bush said Hussein was 6 months from possessing nuclear weapons (based on lies) and his administration said we had to do something before the "smoking gun is a mushroom cloud."

As far as connecting Iraq to 9.11, the administration never directly said there was a connection, but they certainly inferred it. Between drawing a connection with Iraq and Al-Qaeda; an Al-Qaeda and 9.11, along with talking about 9.11 most times when talking of Iraq, they managed to get some 70%+ of people polled to think Iraq was involved with 9.11.

 

[Faun]

Gee, isn't it odd that the Bush administration never officially confirmed this as proof that Saddam had WMD's, when they, the administration, were the one entity for whom such proof was most crucial.

lol, this is RW fantasy. Everyone must learn that for every single event of political consequence that happens,

the rightwing propaganda machine will fabricate a version of it that makes conservatives look good.

You really know the Repubs know they fucked up in Iraq when, instead of proudly proclaiming all the great things that were accomplished by invading Iraq, all they can do is go, well look at all the Democrats that did this or that.

Of course these are the very same Democrats that Republicans hate and wouldn't let a Democrat piss on their head if their hair was on fire. Yet these rethugs let the mean mean ole Democrats lead them right into the very war they were trying so hard to avoid.

If their (Republicans war of choice) wasn't so full of misery and death it would be funny as hell to hear this story they are making up.

Absolutely correct. In fact, had Iraq been a success, THEY would be the ones pointing out how many Democrats voted against it.

 

[Camp]

Freedom Agenda - Quotes and Facts on Iraq
Together, we must 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
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, 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."
"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that."

Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
In a Los Angeles Times editorial: "A 'Big Cat' With Nothing to Lose"
February 6, 2003; Page B17

"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."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998

You can list 199 pages of statements, speeches, video's. None of the people making them had the responsibility and authority to take military action. Only one man had that power. Ever since that one man who had the power made his decision he and his supporters along with his advisers and consultants have been running from taking responsibility for their actions. Instead they play a cowardly game of blaming others for their misdeeds, failures and mistakes.