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

[candycorn]

You're probably embarrassed enough for all of the right wing nutjobs who still claim there were WMDs. Even GWB admitted there were none...any sane person would have stopped claiming otherwise after he gave up the ghost. But please keep on entertaining us with your craziness spiked with just enough obscenity to remind us that you're actually serious; which only serves to heighten the sensation of seeing you humiliate yourself further. blah blah blah

.

Bush was correct...Saddam didn't have WMDs...they were shipped through Syria into Lebanon....you seem to have trouble with simple words......maybe you're too cum-drunk to notice but others have.

Which makes you wonder why we invaded a country that had zero nuke weapons....

Here is what you're arguing:

We knew the WMDs were long gone but went in anyway? Sell stupid somewhere else, thanks to you we have more than enough to last a century plus.

 

[BullKurtz]

,

It's all true, Breitbart and the KKK told me so and asked that I give them one month's salary every year for the truth!!!

Your month's salary=$30 in aluminum recycling and $130 of SNAP benefits....no wonder they laughed you out of the "KKK".....BTW comedians are usually very ANGRY people.....plus you're not funny.

 

[BullKurtz]

Which makes you wonder why we invaded a country that had zero nuke weapons....

Here is what you're arguing:

We knew the WMDs were long gone but went in anyway? Sell stupid somewhere else, thanks to you we have more than enough to last a century plus.

Somebody sold you STUPID alright but it wasn't us....and again, although the CIA had the sat photos, they didn't realize what might be in the trucks...if we had what would you have had us do....strafe them setting off those munitions on a nation we were to occupy and kill the dozens of russian Spetnaz driving those trucks enraging the old USSR boys chomping at the bit to get back into power?

 

[candycorn]

,

It's all true, Breitbart and the KKK told me so and asked that I give them one month's salary every year for the truth!!!

Your month's salary=$30 in aluminum recycling and $130 of SNAP benefits....no wonder they laughed you out of the "KKK".....BTW comedians are usually very ANGRY people.....plus you're not funny.

Talk about not funny....I'm actually laughing at how lame your attempt at humor was.

 

[candycorn]

Which makes you wonder why we invaded a country that had zero nuke weapons....

Here is what you're arguing:

We knew the WMDs were long gone but went in anyway? Sell stupid somewhere else, thanks to you we have more than enough to last a century plus.

Somebody sold you STUPID alright but it wasn't us....and again, although the CIA had the sat photos, they didn't realize what might be in the trucks...if we had what would you have had us do....strafe them setting off those munitions on a nation we were to occupy and kill the dozens of russian Spetnaz driving those trucks enraging the old USSR boys chomping at the bit to get back into power?

so we finally know what was in a truck that was 15,000 miles on the other side of the world 10 years after the "fact"....

Go back to playing with your toy soldiers billy girl; the water is too deep for you here.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Right, that's the big lie, the crap you said. Democrats were not lied to, you were hand in hand with W thought the whole thing. Then you screwed your country for cheap political points. You were wrong and you were wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.


Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Salon.com

What a sucker. Democrats love you. There are two parties of which almost everyone is a member of one or the other. To believe that one in such a short time completely hoodwinked the other to that magnitude is just pathetically gullible. And if you want to go the WMD debate, it's irrelevant if Saddam had "stockpiles" or not. He could make them, we know, because he used them. That is what is a threat. If you really supported the war for WMDs, you should still support it. But of course partisan points are you goal, so you go the route to get them

Yes sure, pseudo-libertarians and pseudo-conservatives love your worn out talking points. Saddam was always able to make less sophisticated chemical weapons but wasn't able to make the move advanced ones until he got a little help from his friend Ronnie Raygun and a host of Western nations who supplied him with precursor chemicals and duel use technology to do so. But it was all known quantities. In fact it was a discrepancies in the precursors he purchased and what he could prove was either used in the war with Iran or destroyed via the UN resolution that ever gave legs to any accusation that Iraq still had some capacity to make more of those Chemical Weapons. One of the many talking points the Bush Administration always floated to fright **** America was Iraq's ever growing stockpile of newly manufactured WMD.

 

[Faun]

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?

Hillary Clinton never reversed her position, that's why Obama beat her. She has done so recently.

Not exactly true. Here are two quotes, and there are many more, that she made prior to the election.

'During an April 20, 2004 interview on Larry King Live, Clinton was asked about her October 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.... The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared."


"Clinton opposed the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 and supported a February 2007 non-binding Senate resolution against it, which failed to gain cloture. On February 5, 2007, Clinton said: "Believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage ... You have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."

Clinton didn't have the same intel as Bush.

 

[TooTall]

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?

Hillary Clinton never reversed her position, that's why Obama beat her. She has done so recently.

Not exactly true. Here are two quotes, and there are many more, that she made prior to the election.

'During an April 20, 2004 interview on Larry King Live, Clinton was asked about her October 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.... The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared."


"Clinton opposed the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 and supported a February 2007 non-binding Senate resolution against it, which failed to gain cloture. On February 5, 2007, Clinton said: "Believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage ... You have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."

Clinton didn't have the same intel as Bush.

Since she had been in the White House for 8 years before Bush took office, you may be correct. She probably had considerably more intel than Bush did. This is what President Clinton did regarding Iraq.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:
1. committed various and significant violations of international law,
2. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and
3. further had ignored resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.
The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives and by unanimous consent in the Senate. US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998.
President Clinton stated in February 1998:

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons....

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...."

 

[TooTall]

Glad you're a master of "simple" reasoning. Clearly, anything beyond that is above your pay grade. Regardless, with the exception of pointing out Hitler didn't resort to using mustard gas, everything else you said was made up. And regardless of your military experience, stupid is stupid. And what you claim Hussein did is sooo ******* stupid, it's never been done before. Even Hitler, who you cited for comparison purposes wasn't stupid enough to do that....

But apparently, you are.

Plus, you have to leap the hurdle that the U.N. was scouring Iraq for WMD and they didn't find them (the ones you claim were smuggled out) either.

France was tipping off Saddam where the UN inspectors were going the next day...why? Because France was continuing to defy the embargo and shipping weapons and materiel in to him. Saddam also sent his fighter jets to IRAN to save them you might recall......the same IRAN he'd been fighting for ten years. You expect me to profile a man who told his own generals he had a nuclear weapons program going when he didn't? What do you expect from our intel guys when he was deceiving the ones we'd turned...why would a man want his adversaries to know what he didn't have is your question....take your time.

Oh this is rich.

Now it's those communist,being drinking frenchies that helped Saddam!

So we have Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Mohammad, and the French all in on the conspiracy. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that the God George W. Bush could be wrong. He is GOD!!!

You do have a way to ignore facts. The French were heavily invested in Saddam's Iraq, and only the ignorant don't know that.

 

[Faun]

Glad you're a master of "simple" reasoning. Clearly, anything beyond that is above your pay grade. Regardless, with the exception of pointing out Hitler didn't resort to using mustard gas, everything else you said was made up. And regardless of your military experience, stupid is stupid. And what you claim Hussein did is sooo ******* stupid, it's never been done before. Even Hitler, who you cited for comparison purposes wasn't stupid enough to do that....

But apparently, you are.

Plus, you have to leap the hurdle that the U.N. was scouring Iraq for WMD and they didn't find them (the ones you claim were smuggled out) either.

France was tipping off Saddam where the UN inspectors were going the next day...why? Because France was continuing to defy the embargo and shipping weapons and materiel in to him. Saddam also sent his fighter jets to IRAN to save them you might recall......the same IRAN he'd been fighting for ten years. You expect me to profile a man who told his own generals he had a nuclear weapons program going when he didn't? What do you expect from our intel guys when he was deceiving the ones we'd turned...why would a man want his adversaries to know what he didn't have is your question....take your time.

France was not tipping off inspectors when they returned to Iraq in 2002. The U.N. said they had unfettered access to all sites and some inspections were surprise inspections. Hussein gave no weapons to Iran; he stored unarmed jets for later use in case his air force was decimated. What I expect you to do is present an argument rooted in reality; not make one up with the hopes you can lend it credibility by saying it's reasonable, when in fact, it's so bizarre, no country had ever done it before.

 

[BullKurtz]

France was not tipping off inspectors when they returned to Iraq in 2002. The U.N. said they had unfettered access to all sites and some inspections were surprise inspections. Hussein gave no weapons to Iran; he stored unarmed jets for later use in case his air force was decimated. What I expect you to do is present an argument rooted in reality; not make one up with the hopes you can lend it credibility by saying it's reasonable, when in fact, it's so bizarre, no country had ever done it before.

Okay that's it....all you do is lie and talk out your ass...sayonara ponytail.

 

[Faun]

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?

Hillary Clinton never reversed her position, that's why Obama beat her. She has done so recently.

Not exactly true. Here are two quotes, and there are many more, that she made prior to the election.

'During an April 20, 2004 interview on Larry King Live, Clinton was asked about her October 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.... The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared."


"Clinton opposed the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 and supported a February 2007 non-binding Senate resolution against it, which failed to gain cloture. On February 5, 2007, Clinton said: "Believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage ... You have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."

Clinton didn't have the same intel as Bush.

Since she had been in the White House for 8 years before Bush took office, you may be correct. She probably had considerably more intel than Bush did. This is what President Clinton did regarding Iraq.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:
1. committed various and significant violations of international law,
2. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and
3. further had ignored resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.
The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives and by unanimous consent in the Senate. US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998.
President Clinton stated in February 1998:

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons....

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...."

Suggesting she had even more intel than Bush is even more insane. First Ladies do not share the same level of clearance as the president. Besides, she had not been First Lady for almost 2 years by the time our intelligence community provided Bush and Congress an NIE on Iraq. And Senator Clinton did not have the same level of clearance as Bush and therefore, did not receive the same intel as Bush.

 

[BullKurtz]

Suggesting she had even more intel than Bush is even more insane. First Ladies do not share the same level of clearance as the president. Besides, she had not been First Lady for almost 2 years by the time our intelligence community provided Bush and Congress an NIE on Iraq. And Senator Clinton did not have the same level of clearance as Bush and therefore, did not receive the same intel as Bush.

Yet another lie you sack of shit....the intel was provided in a secure area of the Capitol building....none of your Rats bothered to go look at it.....you really suck...a liar and a ******* moron to think your tales will float......enough of you.

 

[Faun]

France was not tipping off inspectors when they returned to Iraq in 2002. The U.N. said they had unfettered access to all sites and some inspections were surprise inspections. Hussein gave no weapons to Iran; he stored unarmed jets for later use in case his air force was decimated. What I expect you to do is present an argument rooted in reality; not make one up with the hopes you can lend it credibility by saying it's reasonable, when in fact, it's so bizarre, no country had ever done it before.

Okay that's it....all you do is lie and talk out your ass...sayonara ponytail.

Run, Forrest! Run!!!

 

[TooTall]

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?

Hillary Clinton never reversed her position, that's why Obama beat her. She has done so recently.

Not exactly true. Here are two quotes, and there are many more, that she made prior to the election.

'During an April 20, 2004 interview on Larry King Live, Clinton was asked about her October 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.... The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared."


"Clinton opposed the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 and supported a February 2007 non-binding Senate resolution against it, which failed to gain cloture. On February 5, 2007, Clinton said: "Believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage ... You have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."

Clinton didn't have the same intel as Bush.

Since she had been in the White House for 8 years before Bush took office, you may be correct. She probably had considerably more intel than Bush did. This is what President Clinton did regarding Iraq.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:
1. committed various and significant violations of international law,
2. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and
3. further had ignored resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.
The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives and by unanimous consent in the Senate. US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998.
President Clinton stated in February 1998:

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons....

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...."

Suggesting she had even more intel than Bush is even more insane. First Ladies do not share the same level of clearance as the president. Besides, she had not been First Lady for almost 2 years by the time our intelligence community provided Bush and Congress an NIE on Iraq. And Senator Clinton did not have the same level of clearance as Bush and therefore, did not receive the same intel as Bush.

You probably believe that the 'smartest woman in the world' at the time didn't know what was going on. How do you account for her knowledgeable statements regarding WMD's if she didn't know? Such as:

"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

 

[Claudette]

I always suspected they had been sold off by Saddam, so there were no WMD's left on the ground by the time that the US arrived.

Yup. I've read they were moved to Syria before our guys landed.

Is that true?? Who knows but it sounds like something Saddam would do. He sure as shit wouldn't want WMD's found in his country even though every intelligence agency in the world knew he had em.

 

[TooTall]

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?

Hillary Clinton never reversed her position, that's why Obama beat her. She has done so recently.

Not exactly true. Here are two quotes, and there are many more, that she made prior to the election.

'During an April 20, 2004 interview on Larry King Live, Clinton was asked about her October 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.... The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared."


"Clinton opposed the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 and supported a February 2007 non-binding Senate resolution against it, which failed to gain cloture. On February 5, 2007, Clinton said: "Believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage ... You have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."

Clinton didn't have the same intel as Bush.

Since she had been in the White House for 8 years before Bush took office, you may be correct. She probably had considerably more intel than Bush did. This is what President Clinton did regarding Iraq.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:
1. committed various and significant violations of international law,
2. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and
3. further had ignored resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.
The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives and by unanimous consent in the Senate. US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998.
President Clinton stated in February 1998:

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons....

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...."

Suggesting she had even more intel than Bush is even more insane. First Ladies do not share the same level of clearance as the president. Besides, she had not been First Lady for almost 2 years by the time our intelligence community provided Bush and Congress an NIE on Iraq. And Senator Clinton did not have the same level of clearance as Bush and therefore, did not receive the same intel as Bush.

You probably believe that the 'smartest woman in the world' at the time didn't know what was going on. How do you account for her knowledgeable statements regarding WMD's if she didn't know? Such as:

"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

 

[Faun]

Suggesting she had even more intel than Bush is even more insane. First Ladies do not share the same level of clearance as the president. Besides, she had not been First Lady for almost 2 years by the time our intelligence community provided Bush and Congress an NIE on Iraq. And Senator Clinton did not have the same level of clearance as Bush and therefore, did not receive the same intel as Bush.

Yet another lie you sack of shit....the intel was provided in a secure area of the Capitol building....none of your Rats bothered to go look at it.....you really suck...a liar and a ******* moron to think your tales will float......enough of you.

You truly are committed to proving you're an imbecile. At least you found something you're quite adept at.

Most of Congress does not have the same security clearance as the president. I cab't believe you don't know that. Regardless of your ignorance, Bush and members of Congressional select intelligence committees were privy to the full 96 page NIE. The rest of the Congress, including Hillary Clinton, we're provided a heavily redacted 28 page white paper.

Now ya know.

 

[TooTall]

Suggesting she had even more intel than Bush is even more insane. First Ladies do not share the same level of clearance as the president. Besides, she had not been First Lady for almost 2 years by the time our intelligence community provided Bush and Congress an NIE on Iraq. And Senator Clinton did not have the same level of clearance as Bush and therefore, did not receive the same intel as Bush.

Yet another lie you sack of shit....the intel was provided in a secure area of the Capitol building....none of your Rats bothered to go look at it.....you really suck...a liar and a ******* moron to think your tales will float......enough of you.

You truly are committed to proving you're an imbecile. At least you found something you're quite adept at.

Most of Congress does not have the same security clearance as the president. I cab't believe you don't know that. Regardless of your ignorance, Bush and members of Congressional select intelligence committees were privy to the full 96 page NIE. The rest of the Congress, including Hillary Clinton, we're provided a heavily redacted 28 page white paper.

Now ya know.

They do talk to each other and the members of the select intelligence committees voted FOR the Iraq resolution.

 

[Faun]

Hillary Clinton never reversed her position, that's why Obama beat her. She has done so recently.

Not exactly true. Here are two quotes, and there are many more, that she made prior to the election.

'During an April 20, 2004 interview on Larry King Live, Clinton was asked about her October 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.... The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared."


"Clinton opposed the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 and supported a February 2007 non-binding Senate resolution against it, which failed to gain cloture. On February 5, 2007, Clinton said: "Believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage ... You have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."

Clinton didn't have the same intel as Bush.

Since she had been in the White House for 8 years before Bush took office, you may be correct. She probably had considerably more intel than Bush did. This is what President Clinton did regarding Iraq.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:
1. committed various and significant violations of international law,
2. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and
3. further had ignored resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.
The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives and by unanimous consent in the Senate. US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998.
President Clinton stated in February 1998:

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons....

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...."

Suggesting she had even more intel than Bush is even more insane. First Ladies do not share the same level of clearance as the president. Besides, she had not been First Lady for almost 2 years by the time our intelligence community provided Bush and Congress an NIE on Iraq. And Senator Clinton did not have the same level of clearance as Bush and therefore, did not receive the same intel as Bush.

You probably believe that the 'smartest woman in the world' at the time didn't know what was going on. How do you account for her knowledgeable statements regarding WMD's if she didn't know? Such as:

"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

While I'm impressed you think she's the smartest woman in the world, how could I (or you) possibly know what she read or heard to make that comment?? What is known is that she did not have the same level of security clearance as Bush. She received a heavily redacted version of the NIE 1/4 the size of the one Bush received.