What IS funny is that someone posts actual quotes from liberals talking out of both sides of their mouth as usual, and then you jump on the first guy to agree with it, call him names etc etc etc. Read the quotes morons.

These are your leaders and they said the same stuff Bush says.

The thing is they are OUT OF POWER, and want it back sooooooooo bad. They will SAY ANYTHING to do it, and you are all chumps for listening to them.

What is boring is your shameless attacks and double standards.

What a bunch of collective moronic assholes.

Alot of those quotes are taken out of context, nobody likes Saddam or terrorists and they say so. Then you quote one line from a speech it makes it look like they've been ardent hawks since 1998.

The big difference is that Bush said these things and used them to start an un-necessary war. You can't seriously call Albright, Gore, Clinton, or Kerry hawks when comparing them to the Bush Administration. They were willing to wait for better intelligence before starting a war with an Arab country.

No. I think they lacked the spine do to it nor the ability to stand up to the UN and tell them to f$%K off. They were too worried about offending someone or making an enemy of a Arab country.

Screw that. Defend American, protect its citizens and show the world that we aren't gonna be pushed around by some bitchass tyrannic demigod cocksucker in a turban.

That's all fine and dandy, except now it's being presented as "we got rid of a tyrant and freed it's people."

Now, how exactly is that defending Americans?

(And I'm not even going to touch the "turban" comment except to ask: when is the last time you ever saw Hussein in a turban?)

(I thought this was in the ALR last night excuse the language)

My point is that the Dems will say ANYTHING at the time to get back in power. Look at the quotes. And there are tons more.

And then not back it up.

Kerry can't seem to make up his mind about anything. Do you really want this?

And whoever said the stuff about the three journalists who are pro bush needs to just go soak your head. What a laugher. Have you seen Katie Cupcake roll her eyes? Or the disgusting liberal slant that the mainstream media has? Water is less transparent.

They are solely out to sell their programs and papers. SOLElY. OUT FOR PROFIT. C'mon think about it for a minute......I'll wait.

Why do you think Clinton got such a pass? It sold papers bigtime. Instead of focusing on the Country, he allowed groups like Al Q to strengthen and develop. He was offered Usama on a platter!! Too busy defending himself from allegations of misconduct. Too busy chasing skirts around the Whitehouse. Too busy sneaking out for McDonalds.

The press loved it. They want more, so dolts who cannot think for themselves will watch their programs and buy their papers.

Did you see the 60 minutes patty cake with Richard Clark? Who owns 60 minutes? The very same publishing company that published the book.

Okay enough for now, don't want any heads to pop....

Yeah, your right. Moments after eliminating his army and plunging the country into turmoil, we should have left. Just let 'um go it alone and see what happens right? That would be a good experiment wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

He has been known to wear them, seen pics of him in traditional robes in pictures of Baghdad. Oh and Bin Laden, turban aficionado.

we went to iraq to do a job and its done. let the UN clean up the mess.

I'm not sure if Saddam ever wore turbans, but he has on occasion worn the old dish towel style head gear....



Here's a mural of him with a dish rag on his head...

I said no such thing, and I inferred no such thing.

Snopes

Note the paragraph:

"However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

Clarke's Own Words Today on Meet The Press....

and based on HIS OWN WORDS, is it safe to assume that Clinton could not save 2,752 US lives on 9/11 because..

1) the President had two other issues that were more important at the time, Arafat and the Peace process in the Middle East being one. So invading Afghan terrorist camps could not be done.

2) The bombing of Yugoslavia the other reason invading the terror camps could not be done, possibly preventing 9/11.

3) The CIA and Special Forces under Clinton's watch were not adequate enough to either capture or kill Osama.

4) And finally, the President didn’t want or need “wag the dog” heat from the press. So I guess a bj in the WH is a serious offense, it may have caused the death of 2,752 US civilians.

So let's blame Bush for his first 9 months in the WH, not Clinton during his 8 years. .

The great thing about this interview was that unwittingly, Clarke buries Clinton with his own words.

Go to Meet the Press and download the transcript, it’s laughable when you read it carefully.

And this character assassination that Clarke cries about is sickening. Nobody is attacking him personally (that he beat his wife, or is a drunk – that’s personal). They’re using his own words – HOW HORRIBLE.

Here is a partial of today's Meet the Press. Read it a few times and ask yourself how does Clarke have a leg to stand on, and why isn't the former President getting the heat.

MR. RUSSERT:
The Washington Post did an analysis of the September 11 Commission reports, your book and testimony and everyone else's, and concluded in an analysis piece, "Bush, Clinton varied little on terrorism." Would you concur with that?

MR. CLARKE: No, not really. Let's answer Dick Cheney's question: What was the Clinton administration doing and what did it fail to do? Because it failed to do some things. Thirty-five Americans over the course of eight years--35 Americans--were killed by al-Qaeda during the Clinton years. And as a result of those 35 deaths, President Clinton ordered the assassination of Osama bin Laden, breaking with years of tradition and precedent, and the assassination of his deputies, by CIA. He fired cruise missiles into a base where he thought bin Laden was going to be. He launched a series of diplomatic, intelligence, law enforcement, military steps against al-Qaeda.

What he failed to do was to take all of the camps in Afghanistan where these terrorists were being trained on a conveyor belt that was turning out thousands of people and sending them overseas--what he failed to do was to eliminate them, just to bomb them. Now, there were lots of other things going on in the world. And to be fair, he had the Middle East peace process close to an agreement. He was bombing in Serbia. He was bombing in Iraq. In retrospect, with 20/20 hindsight, people now understand that he should have bombed the camps. I said so at the time.

MR. RUSSERT: In '96 when Osama left Sudan, stopped and refueled in the country of Qatar to go to Afghanistan, there were also discussions at that time, according to President Clinton, to turn Osama over to the Saudis or perhaps, some others suggested, snatching Osama at the refueling.

MR. CLARKE: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: Should we have done that?

MR. CLARKE: Well, if the CIA had been capable of doing it, we would have. We began looking with the CIA and Delta Force at options to snatch bin Laden in 1996, 1997, 1998, and they were unable do so. And this is one of the things I talk about in the book, the need to strengthen our intelligence and military capability so that we can do things like that.
What else did Clinton do, however? We had Iraqi-sponsored terrorism against the United States; he used military force, and they stopped.

HOW ABOUT THAT LAST STATEMENT, IRAQI-SPONSORED TERRORISM, HMMMMMMMMMM?

Transcript here

And to SuSY, the problem with reading most newspapers is that they are slanted. And then people spout what they read as if it's the truth. See above. It's all in Clarke's words. No spin needed.

Spin is what Clarke said regarding his prior statements to the press about Bush in 02. If he was trying to put a positive "spin" for the WH, you don't go into specifics like "there was no plan with the prior Administration".

I'm with Ian on this one...

Righties claim that lefties are saying and doing anything and everything they can to get back on the hot seat. That's true. Meanwhile, I've heard the same things coming out of the Republican camp for close to a year and a half now.

It's old. We are just as open as we've always been to a terrorist attack. We can't protect everything. And we never will. Like Ian mentioned, terrorism will continue long after we're dead. Sure, it can be stymied somewhat, but it will always continue. And it will always continue here and to Americans abroad as long as their are people who hate us and our ideals and have the means to make it happen.

What has "freeing" Iraq done for us? In America? Not a goddamn thing. The economy is STILL in the shitter, the dollar is fucking worthless compared to where it can/should be, homeless people are still plentiful, etc.. We can't even get our heads out of our ass on such issues as gay marriage (which shouldn't be an issue, IMO), kids falling behind in education, higher education progressively becoming finacially out of reach for a lot of people, I could go on and on..

Snipers in Ohio & DC? THOSE my friends, are terrorists. Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist, as are people who think like him and have the capability to attack us. Those are the threats to our society, not some shitstain in a shithole of a country who could only have a wetdream about doing half the shit Bin Laden has already prepetuated to us.

And to equate the liberation of Iraq to freeing Europe in World War II is about the most ridiculous statement I've ever read on this board. The war in Europe was about stopping a madman not only bent on taking over the world, but with the help of Japan and Italy, was CAPABLE of it. Saddam and Iraq had no such capability, not even close.

It took one country (us) one month to pretty much eradicate any sense of "military" Saddam had. It took pretty much the free world 5+ YEARS to do it in World War II. Saddam's army was and is a joke. So to compare the two is preposterous at best.

morons hypocrites and Dumbasses

Now who wants to go grab a burger?

Oh and the whole why doesnt America focus on America for awhile.... Great idea i think i saw something similar at a ralley i attended a few months ago.....OH YEAH

the group at the rally was the KKK

Seperation from the rest of the world is not the way to go. Unfortunately Bush reacted to the Sept 11th situation, and took advantage of it to oust Saddam.
Did saddam need to be taken out of power. Yes
Did Saddam have WMD more than likely
Does it suck that my friends and my cousin are over there and might possibly be dead at this very moment Like you wouldnt believe

But its all summed up int he stories of Iraq kids who come up to amreican soldiers and thank them. Or Iraq women who thank the soldiers for their freedom.

Freedom doesnt mean anything in America to civilians anymore. It didnt cost you a thing. Ask a service man what its like...Someone whose actually been there and done it.

Remember folks spin happens both ways no side left or right is perfect and both sides are corrupt. No politician has ever gained office without being a little bit greasy.

George Bush and Bill Clinton somehow ended up at the same barbershop. As they sat there, each being worked on by a different barber, not a word was spoken. The barbers were both afraid to start a conversation, for fear it would turn to politics. As the barbers finished their shaves, the one who had Clinton in his chair reached for the aftershave.

Clinton was quick to stop him saying, "No thanks, my wife Hillary will smell that and think I've been in a whorehouse."

The second barber turned to Bush and said, "How about you?"
Bush replied, "Go ahead, Laura doesn't know what the inside of a whorehouse smells like."

Actually freeing the Iraqi's from Saddam's control was part of the reason we took him out, and was mentioned from the get go.

It's not a question of him being taken out and if it was a good thing or not. It is a question of where the priorities were and how the case was presented to the international cummunity and the American people. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

Since when are we looking at our failed policy descisions with rose colored glasses and ignoring the facts while only concentrating on the few positives?

At which U.N. meeting did Powell or Rumsfield present the case for the liberation of the Iraqi people ? When did either of them ever pound thier fist on the deck and say "We need to do this for the people of Iraq?"

Deposing a dictator is and was not the focal point of the war nor was it proposed to be. No one can argue that removing Sadaam from power was a good thing and the net result will more than likely be a positive thing for the people of Iraq.

BUT:

Countless arguments and request for international support were made based on the argument that Iraq was a country in posession of WMD's and ties to terrorism and inferences were made as to their association with OBL and Al Queda. That was the sole basis for the IMMEDIATE necessity for the war.

How many Americans would have initially put their tax dollars and the lives of their sons and daughters behind the war if the primary argument was the liberation of suffering Iraqis? No one has given a shit about them for the past 30 years and I doubt any one really does now.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was the marketing plan created to change that focus once the war started. And thus far just to recap: NO WMD and NO PROVEN ties to OBL and Al Queda. So without "Iraqi Freedom" I guess there would be a lot of explaining to do about why we have spent billions of dollars and American lives on a failed mission, wouldn't there be?

That wasn't the Declaration of war on Iraq. That was bluster and rhetoric about the "war on Terrorism."

American invaded Iraq in 2003. This transcript is from January 2002.

This had nothing concrete to do with America's invasion of Iraq. It was rhetoric and bullshit.

I believe the Declaration of War came in the early months of 2003 . . .

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

Read the opening sentence.

socal, straight from Clarke's mouth in case you missed it. Last sentence?

MR. CLARKE: Well, if the CIA had been capable of doing it, we would have. We began looking with the CIA and Delta Force at options to snatch bin Laden in 1996, 1997, 1998, and they were unable do so. And this is one of the things I talk about in the book, the need to strengthen our intelligence and military capability so that we can do things like that.
What else did Clinton do, however? We had Iraqi-sponsored terrorism against the United States; he used military force, and they stopped.

Do I need to post dozens of quotes from Clinton, Gore and Kerry regarding Iraq's WMD and the need to eliminate them?

Haven't you been paying attention. We already discussed that IN THIS THREAD!

OK Kerensky, the I'll go by Clarke's own Unabbreviated Words, which inadvertently, buries Clinton, not Bush.

I don't want people to beat up on bush!

Just let him explain himself!

Jeff, you may be right. But if the Bush's are so in bed with the oil as your post illustrates, then why didn't Bush 1 invade and take over Iraq after they (iraq) invaded Kuwait? They had the world behind him and "just cause". It would have been easy as pie.

If you recall, the U.N. basically said enough was enough after Sadaam "agreed" to the list of demands they set for him.

We should have given the U.N. the finger and finnished the job, but we didn't.