The NY Times ,Clinton's 1998 Iraq Liberation Act & 3,168,000 Iraqi children agree: There were WMDs!

[Muhammed]

Google

 

[Faun]

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."

Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....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." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia


Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.

Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!

If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.

By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?

"the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t" ~ George Bush, mass murderer, 2006

Calling Bill and Hillary liars, tsk tsk.

Neither of them were the command-in-chief who sent in 150,000 troops over WMD that weren't there.

 

[Faun]

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."

Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....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." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia


Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.

Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!

If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.

By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?

"the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t" ~ George Bush, mass murderer, 2006

Calling Bill and Hillary liars, tsk tsk.

As well as these Democrats!! Who later became traitors and helped kill our troops in Iraq by encouraging the barbarians!

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

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path." Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

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

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

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

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

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

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

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

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

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

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

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

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

BUT once GWB was President GUESS who Harvard University study showed...HELPED KILL OUR TROOPS in Iraq with statements like these!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"
The above quotes encouraging of the terrorists has shown by a Harvard study to have increased violence by 10%...
THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

And who made they decision to deploy troops over non-existent WMD? It wasn't anyone you mentioned.

 

[Weatherman2020]

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."

Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....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." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia


Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.

Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!

If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.

By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?

"the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t" ~ George Bush, mass murderer, 2006

Calling Bill and Hillary liars, tsk tsk.

Neither of them were the command-in-chief who sent in 150,000 troops over WMD that weren't there.

Hillary insisted al Queda was in Iraq. Bush was forced to invade.

 

[Manonthestreet]

NYT admitted he was less than a yr away from a nuke after the the Congressional election in 2006.

 

[BlindBoo]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"
The above quotes encouraging of the terrorists has shown by a Harvard study to have increased violence by 10%...
THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

This effect is completely the fault of the traitorous propaganda arm of the alt-right media and their agents. By taking the above quotes completely out of context for domestic political attacks, all our enemies have to do is simply quote this propaganda as fact.

Did they send you a thank you card or anything?

 

[Faun]

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."

Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....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." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia


Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.

Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!

If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.

By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?

"the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t" ~ George Bush, mass murderer, 2006

Calling Bill and Hillary liars, tsk tsk.

Neither of them were the command-in-chief who sent in 150,000 troops over WMD that weren't there.

Hillary insisted al Queda was in Iraq. Bush was forced to invade.

So the buck didn't stop at Bush's desk? That's what you're saying?

 

[Theowl32]

How much oil has America gotten from the so called invasion of Iraq?

The War For Oil Myth

Yet another left wing cliche debunked by actual facts.

Isis may have "started" under bush, but grew into a monster under the muslim in chief.

The left are liars and they are all cocksuckers.

Also, wmds were found as reported by their bible NY Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

Anymore false narratives the left wants to pass? Have they used the Halliburton lie yet?

I am sick and tired of debunking the fucking lying scumbags.

Oh, right. America only wages war with countries with oiiiiiil! Icky icky gross oiiiiil!

How many countries have oil that this country has not waged war with?

Why didn't the muslim in chief do anything about rawanda? How about the girls that were kidnapped by that stupid ugly muslim n word who leads boko haram?

But but the skinny pathetic smoking marxist in chief had his wife post this....in response to that.

Did, did that work?

The left are dirty scumbags. Pathetic petulant liars.

 

[Tehon]

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."

Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....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." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia


Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.

Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!

If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.

By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?

It's all part of the same big lie. The neocons found a sympathetic ear in Clinton. In Bush they found an accomplice.

So you believe children didn't starve because Saddam didn't care and bluffed about WMDs and the NYT lied?

I believe Iraqis suffered as a result of the big lie that Saddam possessed WMD or had an active program to acquire them.

 

[Theowl32]

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."

Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....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." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia


Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.

Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!

If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.

By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?

It's all part of the same big lie. The neocons found a sympathetic ear in Clinton. In Bush they found an accomplice.

So you believe children didn't starve because Saddam didn't care and bluffed about WMDs and the NYT lied?

I believe Iraqis suffered as a result of the big lie that Saddam possessed WMD or had an active program to acquire them.

I see you ignored the facts, fuckstick.

 

[Tehon]

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."

Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....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." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia


Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.

Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!

If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.

By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?

It's all part of the same big lie. The neocons found a sympathetic ear in Clinton. In Bush they found an accomplice.

So you believe children didn't starve because Saddam didn't care and bluffed about WMDs and the NYT lied?

I believe Iraqis suffered as a result of the big lie that Saddam possessed WMD or had an active program to acquire them.

I see you ignored the facts, fuckstick.

The only fact is that we found no WMD.

 

[AntonToo]

ask the soldiers that got burned thru their boots if there were chemicals.

I did, they said Saddam abandoned nuclear program development a decade before invasion. They got burned with buried old left overs from the chemical program.

Again though you and the masses of idiots seem to have 20/20 hindsight!
MY point was civilized people couldn't allow 3.6 million kids to starve...maybe you could.
But when Saddam allowed 576,000 kids to starve ALL BECAUSE HE WOULDN"T ADMIT there were NO WMDs what would any civilized person think?
Either
A) There are no WMDs and Saddam is murdering children therefore needs to be replaced
OR
B) There are WMDs and if Saddam would let 576,000 kids starve he did have and would have NO constraint on using them!

You tell me without the 20/20 hindsight what the f...k you'd do?

ask the soldiers that got burned thru their boots if there were chemicals.

I did, they said Saddam abandoned nuclear program development a decade before invasion. They got burned with buried old left overs from the chemical program.

Again though you and the masses of idiots seem to have 20/20 hindsight!
MY point was civilized people couldn't allow 3.6 million kids to starve...maybe you could.

You a fucking dumbass. Saddam was long time authoritarian dictator, like many other dictators that would do WHATEVER they needed to do to stay in power (and alive).

Idiot wingers like you get tunnel vision on some half-baked theory and simply ignore MOUNTAIN of evidence that is directly counter to their claim.

The history is long written on this and the best you can do for your sanity is to accept this reality and move on instead making a clown of yourself. Bush, who had most of his legacy riding on this somehow managed to come to terms with facts and so should you.




Say what you will about leftwingers but I rarely, if ever, see this sort of deathgrip clinging to thoroughly settled counter-factuals.

 

[BlindBoo]

How much oil has America gotten from the so called invasion of Iraq?

The once nationalized oil fields of Iraq have been liberated and with the help of the multi-national oil companies has roughly doubled it's exports. The US still purchases about as much oil from Iraq as it did in the 90's

Also, wmds were found as reported

In reality old forgotten stockpiles of pre-gulf War I munitions including chemical warheads were found. Recall the claim was that Saddam had reconstituted the WMD program and was actively producing and stockpiling Chemical Weapons.

 

[washamericom]

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."

Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....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." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia


Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.

Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!

If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.

By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?

It's all part of the same big lie. The neocons found a sympathetic ear in Clinton. In Bush they found an accomplice.

So you believe children didn't starve because Saddam didn't care and bluffed about WMDs and the NYT lied?

I believe Iraqis suffered as a result of the big lie that Saddam possessed WMD or had an active program to acquire them.

I see you ignored the facts, fuckstick.

The only fact is that we found no WMD.

we did. why you guys saddle with saddam and the castros will always astound me, monsters all.

 

[Theowl32]

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."

Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....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." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia


Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.

Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!

If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.

By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?

It's all part of the same big lie. The neocons found a sympathetic ear in Clinton. In Bush they found an accomplice.

So you believe children didn't starve because Saddam didn't care and bluffed about WMDs and the NYT lied?

I believe Iraqis suffered as a result of the big lie that Saddam possessed WMD or had an active program to acquire them.

I see you ignored the facts, fuckstick.

The only fact is that we found no WMD.

Actually they did.

While we are on your pathetic cliche about this country only going after oil, let me ask these questions.

How much oil did we get from Iraq?

Are there countries that have a lot of oil that have not attacked?

Explain why, since you soros boys love to bring that stupid long tired cliche.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=1

While you are at it, read and explain that article.

Poor wittle saddam.

 

[healthmyths]

ask the soldiers that got burned thru their boots if there were chemicals.

I did, they said Saddam abandoned nuclear program development a decade before invasion. They got burned with buried old left overs from the chemical program.

Again though you and the masses of idiots seem to have 20/20 hindsight!
MY point was civilized people couldn't allow 3.6 million kids to starve...maybe you could.
But when Saddam allowed 576,000 kids to starve ALL BECAUSE HE WOULDN"T ADMIT there were NO WMDs what would any civilized person think?
Either
A) There are no WMDs and Saddam is murdering children therefore needs to be replaced
OR
B) There are WMDs and if Saddam would let 576,000 kids starve he did have and would have NO constraint on using them!

You tell me without the 20/20 hindsight what the f...k you'd do?

ask the soldiers that got burned thru their boots if there were chemicals.

I did, they said Saddam abandoned nuclear program development a decade before invasion. They got burned with buried old left overs from the chemical program.

Again though you and the masses of idiots seem to have 20/20 hindsight!
MY point was civilized people couldn't allow 3.6 million kids to starve...maybe you could.

You a fucking dumbass. Saddam was long time authoritarian dictator, like many other dictators that would do WHATEVER they needed to do to stay in power (and alive).

Idiot wingers like you get tunnel vision on some half-baked theory and simply ignore MOUNTAIN of evidence that is directly counter to their claim.

The history is long written on this and the best you can do for your sanity is to accept this reality and move on instead making a clown of yourself. Bush, who had most of his legacy riding on this somehow managed to come to terms with facts and so should you.




Say what you will about leftwingers but I rarely, if ever, see this sort of deathgrip clinging to thoroughly settled counter-factuals.

What "mountain of evidence" am I ignoring?
AGAIN it seems I have to make it VERY VERY SIMPLE!

Saddam WOULD NOT ADMIT THAT THERE WERE NO WMDs. THAT is a FACT.
So based on the FACT that he let 576,000 kids starve when it was so simple to LIE and say he had no WMDs... why didn't he?
The fact is if Saddam was still in power as Clinton, and dozens of Democrats did NOT want that to happen..FACT See 1998 Liberation of Iraq ACT!).
So Bush in calling Saddam's bluff SAVED 3.6 million kids from starving and NO matter how much you ignore that without Saddam gone there would still be
sanctions. Children would starve.

Also NO one seems to contradict my other observation... it was "Liberation of Iraq" under the Democrats then the MSM called it the "Invasion of Iraq" under Bush!
Talk about biasing the news so that idiots like you would then believe the USA was the bad guy in Liberating Iraq!
YOU and these traitors ENCOURAGED the terrorists to kill our troops and the Harvard study proved it!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"
This Harvard study to have increased violence by 10%...
THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

 

[Tehon]

we did. why you guys saddle with saddam and the castros will always astound me, monsters all.

Actually they did.

Rotting, buried and forgotten weapons, built with the consent of the US for a bygone war do not constitute an active weapons program. GFY

 

[Theowl32]

The US got no more oil than they had already been getting.

Still waiting for the morons to tell the countries with oil that we have not "invaded."

I mean we must invaded them all, right?

I mean the oil. OIIIIIIILLLL!!!

 

[washamericom]

It's all part of the same big lie. The neocons found a sympathetic ear in Clinton. In Bush they found an accomplice.

So you believe children didn't starve because Saddam didn't care and bluffed about WMDs and the NYT lied?

I believe Iraqis suffered as a result of the big lie that Saddam possessed WMD or had an active program to acquire them.

I see you ignored the facts, fuckstick.

The only fact is that we found no WMD.

we did. why you guys saddle with saddam and the castros will always astound me, monsters all.

Scott Ritter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scott Ritter

Born William Scott Ritter, Jr.
July 15, 1961 (age 55)
Gainesville, Florida
Alma mater Franklin and Marshall College
Occupation United Nations weapons inspector (resigned)
William Scott Ritter Jr. (born July 15, 1961) was a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, and later a critic of United States foreign policy in the Middle East. Prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Ritter stated that Iraq possessed no significant weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities, becoming "the loudest and most credible skeptic of the Bush administration’s contention that Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction."[1] He received harsh criticism from the political establishment but became a popular antiwar figure and occasional talk show commentator as a result of his stance, later proven to be correct.

In 2001 Ritter on two occasions was detained and later arrested on charges of soliciting minors for sex on the Internet that were both dismissed.[2] He was arrested on similar charges in 2010 that led to a conviction and sentence of one and a half to five and a half years.[3]



Saddam's Dangerous Friends

 

[Theowl32]

we did. why you guys saddle with saddam and the castros will always astound me, monsters all.

Actually they did.

Rotting, buried and forgotten weapons, built with the consent of the US for a bygone war do not constitute an active weapons program. GFY

Read the fucking article. His two son in laws said it. The UN voted 15-0 cause of at least 17 violations you fucking piece of shit.