The Bush Administration Was "ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN" That Saddam Hussein Had WMDs

[jtpr312]

Wrong. It wasn't Bush's call to decide unilaterally for the UNSC, if Hussein violated the terms of previous resolutions.

As far as firing on US warplanes, those planes were bombing the shit out of the country. That's not no-fly zone enforcement, that's trying to provoke a war.

Better read up a bit on the terms of the Cease Fire that stopped hostilities after the first Gulf War son. Wrong, the planes where engaged in their legal duties of ENFORCING the terms of the cease fire when fired upon. You can whine, ***** and cry all you want the FACT is Bush had all the legal and moral authority he needed to go into Iraq and wax their asses, which he did.

What is it with you people? You claim there was WMD and then say there wasn't when you faced with Bush admitting it. You'll be back again posting there was WMD, because all you right-wingers do is make up lies and post them.

What is it with you people? You claim he had no WMD's, yet he used WMD's against his own people and the Iranians in the past, dozens of times. The Democratic leadership, from President Clinton;
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998,
to NSA Berger;
"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
to Senators Levin, Dashle Kerry and other democratic senators;
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
to Rep Mancy Pelosi;
"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."
to Sect of State Albright;
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
among many, many, many more top democrat leaders.

When you faced with the FACT that so many Democrats admitted to Saddam having WMD's and using WMD's in the past, you'll be back again posting there was no WMD's, because all you left wing-nutters do is make up lies and post them.

 

[Billo_Really]

The United States brought its case before the United Nations using the intelligence that was brought to them at that time (sounds very similar to the left saying it wasn't Obama's fault for Benghazi and the "misinformation" it was presented about a demonstration...... yet let's just BLAME Bush anyways for Iraq because we didn't agree with his policies..... not that he lied).

But they only used the intelligence that supported a decision that had already been made. They dismissed intel that wouldn't support that decision. And they didn't tell the UN about the latter.

The point against your argument is that key members of the United Nations were profiting from Iraq, they weren't going to listen to the United States or take further action against Saddam no matter WHAT was presented to them. France was profiting from Iraq by selling them French Marauder fighter aircraft to help rebuild Saddam's Air Force. Russia was also profiting from Iraq by sending them supplies... it's called the Oil for Food United Nations scandal, you should look it up sometime. The United Nations was in bed with Iraq and was going with Saddam's interests of dragging this out for as long as it takes without serious enforcement or pursuit of any further consequences, as a result of more violations. You people on the left are real idiots if you think the United Nations was going to actually "do its job of enforcement" of the cease fire agreement and sanctions they already passed against Iraq. The U.N. was worthless and uninterested with what Iraq may, or may not, be doing.

We knew all about OFF for months, but said nothing about it. They were required to submit monthly reports to the Security Council for reveiw and we saw where all the money was coming from and going to. 51% of which, came from a Houston businessman.

 

[Billo_Really]

What is it with you people? You claim he had no WMD's, yet he used WMD's against his own people and the Iranians in the past, dozens of times. The Democratic leadership, from President Clinton;
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998,
to NSA Berger;
"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
to Senators Levin, Dashle Kerry and other democratic senators;
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
to Rep Mancy Pelosi;
"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."
to Sect of State Albright;
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
among many, many, many more top democrat leaders. When you faced with the FACT that so many Democrats admitted to Saddam having WMD's and using WMD's in the past, you'll be back again posting there was no WMD's, because all you left wing-nutters do is make up lies and post them.

He had no WMD's past 1993.

 

[jtpr312]

Wrong. It wasn't Bush's call to decide unilaterally for the UNSC, if Hussein violated the terms of previous resolutions.

As far as firing on US warplanes, those planes were bombing the shit out of the country. That's not no-fly zone enforcement, that's trying to provoke a war.

The United States brought its case before the United Nations using the intelligence that was brought to them at that time (sounds very similar to the left saying it wasn't Obama's fault for Benghazi and the "misinformation" it was presented about a demonstration...... yet let's just BLAME Bush anyways for Iraq because we didn't agree with his policies..... not that he lied).

The point against your argument is that key members of the United Nations were profiting from Iraq, they weren't going to listen to the United States or take further action against Saddam no matter WHAT was presented to them. France was profiting from Iraq by selling them French Marauder fighter aircraft to help rebuild Saddam's Air Force. Russia was also profiting from Iraq by sending them supplies... it's called the Oil for Food United Nations scandal, you should look it up sometime. The United Nations was in bed with Iraq and was going with Saddam's interests if dragging this out for as long as it takes without serious enforcement or pursuit of any interest of further consequences of any more violations. You people on the left are real idiots if you think the United Nations was going to actually "do its job of enforcement" of the cease fire agreement and sanctions they already passed against Iraq. The U.N. was worthless and uninterested with what Iraq may, or may not, be doing.

Cheney cooked the intelligence and that's been proven.

Which intelligence would that be? The intelligence they got from Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger who stated on 2/28/98; "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Wrong. It wasn't Bush's call to decide unilaterally for the UNSC, if Hussein violated the terms of previous resolutions.

As far as firing on US warplanes, those planes were bombing the shit out of the country. That's not no-fly zone enforcement, that's trying to provoke a war.

The United States brought its case before the United Nations using the intelligence that was brought to them at that time (sounds very similar to the left saying it wasn't Obama's fault for Benghazi and the "misinformation" it was presented about a demonstration...... yet let's just BLAME Bush anyways for Iraq because we didn't agree with his policies..... not that he lied).

The point against your argument is that key members of the United Nations were profiting from Iraq, they weren't going to listen to the United States or take further action against Saddam no matter WHAT was presented to them. France was profiting from Iraq by selling them French Marauder fighter aircraft to help rebuild Saddam's Air Force. Russia was also profiting from Iraq by sending them supplies... it's called the Oil for Food United Nations scandal, you should look it up sometime. The United Nations was in bed with Iraq and was going with Saddam's interests if dragging this out for as long as it takes without serious enforcement or pursuit of any interest of further consequences of any more violations. You people on the left are real idiots if you think the United Nations was going to actually "do its job of enforcement" of the cease fire agreement and sanctions they already passed against Iraq. The U.N. was worthless and uninterested with what Iraq may, or may not, be doing.

Cheney cooked the intelligence and that's been proven.

Yeah right ..... Just like it was already proven the current administration withheld information about there being terrorist attack, and purposely made efforts to LIE to the american people that it was a video so the Obama administration can "save face".

What links do you have to support your theory or hypothesis?

 

[editec]

To quote Bush II when asked about WMD's?

"I guess we were wrong"

 

[jtpr312]

What is it with you people? You claim he had no WMD's, yet he used WMD's against his own people and the Iranians in the past, dozens of times. The Democratic leadership, from President Clinton;
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998,
to NSA Berger;
"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
to Senators Levin, Dashle Kerry and other democratic senators;
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
to Rep Mancy Pelosi;
"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."
to Sect of State Albright;
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
among many, many, many more top democrat leaders. When you faced with the FACT that so many Democrats admitted to Saddam having WMD's and using WMD's in the past, you'll be back again posting there was no WMD's, because all you left wing-nutters do is make up lies and post them.

He had no WMD's past 1993.

Well according to President Clinton, and his top advisors, not to mention the top democratic leadership in the House and the Senate he did and I think they would know a bit more about Iraq's capabilities and weapon's programs than some muslim posting on website. Unless that poster wants to tell us he's an American 007 who parachuted into Iraq and found for himself that Iraq had no WMD's after 1993, which would again, directly contridict the facts;
Biological Weapons

· In 2001, an Iraqi defector, Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, said he had visited twenty secret facilities for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Mr. Saeed, a civil engineer, supported his claims with stacks of Iraqi government contracts, complete with technical specifications. Mr. Saeed said Iraq used companies to purchase equipment with the blessing of the United Nations - and then secretly used the equipment for their weapons programs.

· Iraq admitted to producing biological agents, and after the 1995 defection of a senior Iraqi official, Iraq admitted to the weaponization of thousands of liters of anthrax, botulinim toxin, and aflatoxin for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs and aircraft.

· United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) experts concluded that Iraq's declarations on biological agents vastly understated the extent of its program, and that Iraq actually produced two to four times the amount of most agents, including anthrax and botulinim toxin, than it had declared.

· UNSCOM reported to the UN Security Council in April 1995 that Iraq had concealed its biological weapons program and had failed to account for 3 tons of growth material for biological agents.

· The Department of Defense reported in January 2001 that Iraq has continued to work on its weapons programs, including converting L-29 jet trainer aircraft for potential vehicles for the delivery of chemical or biological weapons.

· The al-Dawrah Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Facility is one of two known biocontainment level-three facilities in Iraq that have an extensive air handling and filtering system. Iraq has admitted that this was a biological weapons facility. In 2001, Iraq announced that it would begin renovating the plant without UN approval, ostensibly to produce vaccines that it could more easily and more quickly import through the UN.

· Saddam Hussein continues its attempts to procure mobile biological weapons laboratories that could be used for further research and development

You can look for yourself at the evidence, AFTER 1993 for chemical weapons here also;
http://http://academic.regis.edu/jriley/saddam_hussein.htm

You can deny this crap all you want, but governments around the world and the UN call your claim a lie. Seems even Clinton's VP calls your statement a lie.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Along with President Clinton's wife, Senator Clinton;
"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

So tell us James Bond wannabe, how did you gather your intelligence showing Saddam had no WMD's after 1993?

 

[jtpr312]

The United States brought its case before the United Nations using the intelligence that was brought to them at that time (sounds very similar to the left saying it wasn't Obama's fault for Benghazi and the "misinformation" it was presented about a demonstration...... yet let's just BLAME Bush anyways for Iraq because we didn't agree with his policies..... not that he lied).

But they only used the intelligence that supported a decision that had already been made. They dismissed intel that wouldn't support that decision. And they didn't tell the UN about the latter.

The point against your argument is that key members of the United Nations were profiting from Iraq, they weren't going to listen to the United States or take further action against Saddam no matter WHAT was presented to them. France was profiting from Iraq by selling them French Marauder fighter aircraft to help rebuild Saddam's Air Force. Russia was also profiting from Iraq by sending them supplies... it's called the Oil for Food United Nations scandal, you should look it up sometime. The United Nations was in bed with Iraq and was going with Saddam's interests of dragging this out for as long as it takes without serious enforcement or pursuit of any further consequences, as a result of more violations. You people on the left are real idiots if you think the United Nations was going to actually "do its job of enforcement" of the cease fire agreement and sanctions they already passed against Iraq. The U.N. was worthless and uninterested with what Iraq may, or may not, be doing.

We knew all about OFF for months, but said nothing about it. They were required to submit monthly reports to the Security Council for reveiw and we saw where all the money was coming from and going to. 51% of which, came from a Houston businessman.

Screw the UN. That gaggle of petty third wold despots, thiefs and scumbags does not dictate to the United States.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The United States brought its case before the United Nations using the intelligence that was brought to them at that time (sounds very similar to the left saying it wasn't Obama's fault for Benghazi and the "misinformation" it was presented about a demonstration...... yet let's just BLAME Bush anyways for Iraq because we didn't agree with his policies..... not that he lied).

But they only used the intelligence that supported a decision that had already been made. They dismissed intel that wouldn't support that decision. And they didn't tell the UN about the latter.

From one excuse to throwing up another theory excuse. You forget that the British were also providing the United States with separate intelligence THEY had gathered on THEIR own regarding Iraq and WMDs at that time. Your argument again doesn't hold water. WAIT! Bush tampered with their intelligence too and the British are also involved in a massive coverup plot to get the United States back into Iraq Are you being serious right now?

The point against your argument is that key members of the United Nations were profiting from Iraq, they weren't going to listen to the United States or take further action against Saddam no matter WHAT was presented to them. France was profiting from Iraq by selling them French Marauder fighter aircraft to help rebuild Saddam's Air Force. Russia was also profiting from Iraq by sending them supplies... it's called the Oil for Food United Nations scandal, you should look it up sometime. The United Nations was in bed with Iraq and was going with Saddam's interests of dragging this out for as long as it takes without serious enforcement or pursuit of any further consequences, as a result of more violations. You people on the left are real idiots if you think the United Nations was going to actually "do its job of enforcement" of the cease fire agreement and sanctions they already passed against Iraq. The U.N. was worthless and uninterested with what Iraq may, or may not, be doing.

We knew all about OFF for months, but said nothing about it. They were required to submit monthly reports to the Security Council for reveiw and we saw where all the money was coming from and going to. 51% of which, came from a Houston businessman.

OMG the stories just keep coming . Where on earth do you all come from with these? Too much Bill Maher? Yes your right .... a business man was in cahoots with ties to what the French and other nations have been doing for years to further their pockets and try to profit from a regime that is in desperate need to rebuild its military. He's getting his cut of the whole arms deal too. You need to stop with all the conspiracy "In Search of .... Bermuda Triangle, Sasquatch theories". These other nations were corrupt enough without the delusions you want to keep spouting off, every time a hole gets found in your argument.

 

[Mac1958]

To quote Bush II when asked about WMD's?

"I guess we were wrong"

Yup.

Aw, what the hell, so he made a little goof. Not his fault, the Commander In Chief title is overrated, anyway. Iraq was the Democrats' fault, they made George do it. All that being C-in-C really means is that you get to salute a lot, which is really fun. Plus, no one can stop you when you want to dress up like a fighter pilot.

Besides, Saddam had some bottles of sarin gas left over, and as we all know, sarin gas is well-known for creating the "mushroom clouds" to which the administration constantly referred as they scared the living shit out of Americans in the dishonest run-up to the war.

Thousands of dead American soldiers? Thousands of permanently maimed American soldiers? Thousands of orphaned American children? Trillions of dollars? Eliminating Iran's one mitigating military enemy in the region, emboldening that country to take over? Meh. All worth it, Saddam was a bad guy with sarin gas bottles laying around and any cost to us was a freakin' bargain.

Plus he had bad breath and was really mean to kittens, I hear.

.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The prior Administration and most of the assclown Democrats in Congress at the time also issued dire warnings about the Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam "had."

But when Pres. George W. Bush said it, HE was lying.

Liberal Democrats are always fair and consistent like that.

And almost none of the liberals even consider it a possibility that neither Pres. Nush nor Pres. Clinton, nor any of the many many other Democrats in the Clinton Administration or Congress were lying or even wrong.

 

[Mac1958]

The prior Administration and most of the assclown Democrats in Congress at the time also issued dire warnings about the Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam "had."

But when Pres. George W. Bush said it, HE was lying.

Liberal Democrats are always fair and consistent like that.

And almost none of the liberals even consider it a possibility that neither Pres. Nush nor Pres. Clinton, nor any of the many many other Democrats in the Clinton Administration or Congress were lying or even wrong.

Aw, what the hell, so he made a little goof. Not his fault, the Commander In Chief title is overrated, anyway. Iraq was the Democrats' fault, they made George do it. All that being C-in-C really means is that you get to salute a lot, which is really fun. Plus, no one can stop you when you want to dress up like a fighter pilot.

Besides, Saddam had some bottles of sarin gas left over, and as we all know, sarin gas is well-known for creating the "mushroom clouds" to which the administration constantly referred as they scared the living shit out of Americans in the dishonest run-up to the war.

Thousands of dead American soldiers? Thousands of permanently maimed American soldiers? Thousands of orphaned American children? Trillions of dollars? Eliminating Iran's one mitigating military enemy in the region, emboldening that country to take over? Meh. All worth it, Saddam was a bad guy with sarin gas bottles laying around and any cost to us was a freakin' bargain.

Plus he had bad breath and was really mean to kittens, I hear.

Yeah!

Like I said!

The Dems made him do it!



.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The prior Administration and most of the assclown Democrats in Congress at the time also issued dire warnings about the Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam "had."

But when Pres. George W. Bush said it, HE was lying.

Liberal Democrats are always fair and consistent like that.

And almost none of the liberals even consider it a possibility that neither Pres. Nush nor Pres. Clinton, nor any of the many many other Democrats in the Clinton Administration or Congress were lying or even wrong.

Aw, what the hell, so he made a little goof. Not his fault, the Commander In Chief title is overrated, anyway. Iraq was the Democrats' fault, they made George do it. All that being C-in-C really means is that you get to salute a lot, which is really fun. Plus, no one can stop you when you want to dress up like a fighter pilot.

Besides, Saddam had some bottles of sarin gas left over, and as we all know, sarin gas is well-known for creating the "mushroom clouds" to which the administration constantly referred as they scared the living shit out of Americans in the dishonest run-up to the war.

Thousands of dead American soldiers? Thousands of permanently maimed American soldiers? Thousands of orphaned American children? Trillions of dollars? Eliminating Iran's one mitigating military enemy in the region, emboldening that country to take over? Meh. All worth it, Saddam was a bad guy with sarin gas bottles laying around and any cost to us was a freakin' bargain.

Plus he had bad breath and was really mean to kittens, I hear.

Yeah!

Like I said!

The Dems made him do it!



.

No, stupid. That is not AS you said.

What I noted was that YOU morons pretend that Pres. Bush "lied" when YOUR fellow idiot liberal leadership had been saying pretty much the exact same thing.

But since you liberals have short memories and tend toward being fully dishonest, you ignore those facts to make your bogus claims against Pres. Bush.

Moron dishonest liberals of your caliber can't even admit that you made it a public policy of the united States to impose regime change on Saddam's Iraq.

 

[Mac1958]

The prior Administration and most of the assclown Democrats in Congress at the time also issued dire warnings about the Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam "had."

But when Pres. George W. Bush said it, HE was lying.

Liberal Democrats are always fair and consistent like that.

And almost none of the liberals even consider it a possibility that neither Pres. Nush nor Pres. Clinton, nor any of the many many other Democrats in the Clinton Administration or Congress were lying or even wrong.

Aw, what the hell, so he made a little goof. Not his fault, the Commander In Chief title is overrated, anyway. Iraq was the Democrats' fault, they made George do it. All that being C-in-C really means is that you get to salute a lot, which is really fun. Plus, no one can stop you when you want to dress up like a fighter pilot.

Besides, Saddam had some bottles of sarin gas left over, and as we all know, sarin gas is well-known for creating the "mushroom clouds" to which the administration constantly referred as they scared the living shit out of Americans in the dishonest run-up to the war.

Thousands of dead American soldiers? Thousands of permanently maimed American soldiers? Thousands of orphaned American children? Trillions of dollars? Eliminating Iran's one mitigating military enemy in the region, emboldening that country to take over? Meh. All worth it, Saddam was a bad guy with sarin gas bottles laying around and any cost to us was a freakin' bargain.

Plus he had bad breath and was really mean to kittens, I hear.

Yeah!

Like I said!

The Dems made him do it!



.

No, stupid. That is not AS you said.

What I noted was that YOU morons pretend that Pres. Bush "lied" when YOUR fellow idiot liberal leadership had been saying pretty much the exact same thing.

But since you liberals have short memories and tend toward being fully dishonest, you ignore those facts to make your bogus claims against Pres. Bush.

Moron dishonest liberals of your caliber can't even admit that you made it a public policy of the united States to impose regime change on Saddam's Iraq.

Look up "Commander in Chief".

Then keep spinning.

Poor Bush, he's the victim in all this.

.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Yeah!

Like I said!

The Dems made him do it!



.

No, stupid. That is not AS you said.

What I noted was that YOU morons pretend that Pres. Bush "lied" when YOUR fellow idiot liberal leadership had been saying pretty much the exact same thing.

But since you liberals have short memories and tend toward being fully dishonest, you ignore those facts to make your bogus claims against Pres. Bush.

Moron dishonest liberals of your caliber can't even admit that you made it a public policy of the united States to impose regime change on Saddam's Iraq.

Look up "Commander in Chief".

Then keep spinning.

Poor Bush, he's the victim in all this.

.

NICE non sequitor. But you do not successfully evade the force of the facts that way. Your application is formally rejected.

Speaking of spinning, you may proceed to sit on it and spin to your heart's content.

When the Commander in Chief was Bill Clinton and HE said that Saddam had WMDs, and when -- under Bill Clinton's signature -- the public policy of the United States became to impose "regime change" on Iraq,* did you cry and moan and carry on like the bed wetter you now act like?

Nah.

_____________________
* Oh and since you liberals hate actual facts, you might as well READ ALL ABOUT IT: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR04655:@@@X
And you might find some of the TEXT of that law to be of interest: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-105hr4655enr/pdf/BILLS-105hr4655enr.pdf

 

[Mac1958]

No, stupid. That is not AS you said.

What I noted was that YOU morons pretend that Pres. Bush "lied" when YOUR fellow idiot liberal leadership had been saying pretty much the exact same thing.

But since you liberals have short memories and tend toward being fully dishonest, you ignore those facts to make your bogus claims against Pres. Bush.

Moron dishonest liberals of your caliber can't even admit that you made it a public policy of the united States to impose regime change on Saddam's Iraq.

Look up "Commander in Chief".

Then keep spinning.

Poor Bush, he's the victim in all this.

.

NICE non sequitor. But you do not successfully evade the force of the facts that way. Your application is formally rejected.

Speaking of spinning, you may proceed to sit on it and spin to your heart's content.

When the Commander in Chief was Bill Clinton and HE said that Saddam had WMDs, and when -- under Bill Clinton's signature -- the public policy of the United States became to impose "regime change" on Iraq,* did you cry and moan and carry on like the bed wetter you now act like?

Nah.
_____________________
* Oh and since you liberals hate actual facts, you might as well READ ALL ABOUT IT: Bill Summary & Status - 105th Congress (1997 - 1998) - H.R.4655 - All Congressional Actions - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
And you might find some of the TEXT of that law to be of interest: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-105hr4655enr/pdf/BILLS-105hr4655enr.pdf

This is interesting.

Why are you so desperate to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats?

It's almost as if you're admitting that the Iraq war was a horrific waste of time, lives, limbs, minds, material and money. I'd think you'd be singing from the mountain tops about what a great idea it was. So again:

Why are you so desperate to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats?

.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The notion that radical fundamentalists are "criminals" and not engaged in a war against the West is vague concept that progressives like yourself seem determined to cling to despite evidence to the contrary. We're presently witnessing the coalescence of radical fundamentalists throughout the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Taliban are taking political power. They are not criminal organizations...they are radical Islamic fundamentalists who seek to impose their views on the rest of the world by force.

I don't see how you can make that conclusion, we're the only ones invading sovereign nations.

In the last 10 years, name one country that has attacked another one, other than us.

Did we forget?

Russia Invades Georgia, U.S. Issues Sharp Rebuke

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Look up "Commander in Chief".

Then keep spinning.

Poor Bush, he's the victim in all this.

.

NICE non sequitor. But you do not successfully evade the force of the facts that way. Your application is formally rejected.

Speaking of spinning, you may proceed to sit on it and spin to your heart's content.

When the Commander in Chief was Bill Clinton and HE said that Saddam had WMDs, and when -- under Bill Clinton's signature -- the public policy of the United States became to impose "regime change" on Iraq,* did you cry and moan and carry on like the bed wetter you now act like?

Nah.
_____________________
* Oh and since you liberals hate actual facts, you might as well READ ALL ABOUT IT: Bill Summary & Status - 105th Congress (1997 - 1998) - H.R.4655 - All Congressional Actions - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
And you might find some of the TEXT of that law to be of interest: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-105hr4655enr/pdf/BILLS-105hr4655enr.pdf

This is interesting.

Why are you so desperate to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats?

It's almost as if you're admitting that the Iraq war was a horrific waste of time, lives, limbs, minds, material and money. I'd think you'd be singing from the mountain tops about what a great idea it was. So again:

Why are you so desperate to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats?

.

^ False premise. I'm not surprised. That's not even a part of what I'm doing.

The Iraq war IS the responsibility of Pres. Bush, the GOP Congressmen and Senators who voted to authorize it AND the Democrat Congressmen and Senators who voted for it. Plenty of shared responsibility to go around.

No.

What I am doing is exposing how fraudulent you strident liberals are.

You urgently try to make the Bush Administration justification for going into Iraq a "lie" while you IGNORE that the very things he maintained about WMD had already been maintained by the Democrats when THEY were large and in charge. You ALSO try to pretend that the only reason to go into Iraq was the WMD matter. That's not true, either, as all the WHEREAS clauses in the Authorization make abundantly clear.

By the way, I don't want to be guilty of painting with too large a brush. Not all liberals are as dishonest as you have shown yourself to be. I am limiting the commentary to the ones who are as dishonest about these matters as you are.

,

 

[DiamondDave]

Look up "Commander in Chief".

Then keep spinning.

Poor Bush, he's the victim in all this.

.

NICE non sequitor. But you do not successfully evade the force of the facts that way. Your application is formally rejected.

Speaking of spinning, you may proceed to sit on it and spin to your heart's content.

When the Commander in Chief was Bill Clinton and HE said that Saddam had WMDs, and when -- under Bill Clinton's signature -- the public policy of the United States became to impose "regime change" on Iraq,* did you cry and moan and carry on like the bed wetter you now act like?

Nah.
_____________________
* Oh and since you liberals hate actual facts, you might as well READ ALL ABOUT IT: Bill Summary & Status - 105th Congress (1997 - 1998) - H.R.4655 - All Congressional Actions - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
And you might find some of the TEXT of that law to be of interest: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-105hr4655enr/pdf/BILLS-105hr4655enr.pdf

This is interesting.

Why are you so desperate to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats?

It's almost as if you're admitting that the Iraq war was a horrific waste of time, lives, limbs, minds, material and money. I'd think you'd be singing from the mountain tops about what a great idea it was. So again:

Why are you so desperate to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats?

.

The responsibility for the decision is on everyone on both sides of the aisle at that time... everyone saw the intel, everyone accepted it, and everyone made the agreement to finally finish the job after Saddam was non-compliant for YEARS... it was just a shame it took so long to finally finish the job that should have been done in the early 90's

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

NICE non sequitor. But you do not successfully evade the force of the facts that way. Your application is formally rejected.

Speaking of spinning, you may proceed to sit on it and spin to your heart's content.

When the Commander in Chief was Bill Clinton and HE said that Saddam had WMDs, and when -- under Bill Clinton's signature -- the public policy of the United States became to impose "regime change" on Iraq,* did you cry and moan and carry on like the bed wetter you now act like?

Nah.
_____________________
* Oh and since you liberals hate actual facts, you might as well READ ALL ABOUT IT: Bill Summary & Status - 105th Congress (1997 - 1998) - H.R.4655 - All Congressional Actions - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
And you might find some of the TEXT of that law to be of interest: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-105hr4655enr/pdf/BILLS-105hr4655enr.pdf

This is interesting.

Why are you so desperate to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats?

It's almost as if you're admitting that the Iraq war was a horrific waste of time, lives, limbs, minds, material and money. I'd think you'd be singing from the mountain tops about what a great idea it was. So again:

Why are you so desperate to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats?

.

The responsibility for the decision is on everyone on both sides of the aisle at that time... everyone saw the intel, everyone accepted it, and everyone made the agreement to finally finish the job after Saddam was non-compliant for YEARS... it was just a shame it took so long to finally finish the job that should have been done in the early 90's

Also, as I recalled the Bush Administration spent quite a bit of time trying to convince the United Nations to act, and making the threat the United States would act if need be, all while the world AND Iraq watched. With such threats from the United States, and it's past history of already going into Iraq once before already, what makes you even think Saddam would keep those weapons in the open ..... right where intel might have already found them? So the left wants us to believe, with other Arab nations that would love to get a hold of such weapons (like Syria), that this dictator would allow them to be found? He just sat on his ass and would make no attempt to try and smuggle them out if the country? The left is just counting on him to be that stupid as to just sit and wait for the United States to finally go in and invade. That's what the left is trying to argue, counting on Saddam's intelligence to finally give them up for these WMDs to be later discovered.