I am surprised the moron didn't call US racist, but I am sure it isn't far from now.
View attachment 79297
LMAO!! That Bush comment is a no brainer. Ask the families of the 4500 dead young Americans who had to go in and find Saddam Hussein so the Bush family's "Vengeance" could be completed. The only motivation Bush had to get Saddam was because he tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar circa 1993.
The entire Republican party never got over that. This letter they wrote to Clinton proves it:
December 18, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President,
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the
steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.
That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at
risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
What you libidiots fail to understand is that Republicans can be liberals too. Liberals love to get the US in wars, just look at the history of the liberals.
Woodrow Wilson ran on the NO US involvement in WWI and after his re election he got US involved.
FDR got US involved with the War in Germany after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Truman got US involved in the Forgotten War.
Kennedy got US involved in the Vietnam War. Johnson escalated the war for his Texas Democrat war machine.
Bush Senior invaded Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
Clinton wagged the dog, in Bosnia when he got caught with a Cuban in Monica.
Bush Junior went to war with Iraq when Osama Obama bombed NY.
Obama's Clinton bombed Libya, just because she could do it.
You liberals love war, how else can they reduce the population other than aborting liberal fetus's. Thank you for that, otherwise there would be many more liberals in America today.
That's a goddam boldfaced lie. The only reason Bush had to invade Iraq was that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate his daddy in Qatar circa 1993. Not to worry....his family vengeance only cost 4500 young American lives and 35,000 seriously wounded.
More liberal lies, do you guys ever smarten up?
The whole goddam Republican party had been looking for an excuse to get Saddam Hussein ever since he tried to kill GHW Bush. This letter to Clinton removes all doubt:
December 18, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President,
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding,
and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end
of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear
and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a
new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready
to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam
Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we
can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to
punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections
were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if
not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during
which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely
that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we
will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle
East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass
destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American
troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant
portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President,
the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle
this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the
steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten
to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action
as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy
for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy,
we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under
existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests
in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
