President Bush's Marching Orders from the Democrats

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. that is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 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." - Madeline 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 (D-MI),Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"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

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated 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 redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an illicit 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, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and 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 secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - 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 of 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

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 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 destroys his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED AND TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY.

Yep, the truth is so boring. :rolleyes:

No, boring because:

1. It's been posted 50 million times.

2. Almost every one of those does not say that Iraq HAS them, just that they are trying to develop them.

You want to talk about this, lets bring up Bush making jokes about not being able to find them...

...wonder how funny the families of nearly 600 dead soldiers finds THIS .

Stup up 'tard. He was making fun of himself and it was funny. Go suck off Kerry some more.

Learn to spell, moron.

Oh shit. A spelling error. Your so cool. I forgot your favorite smilie earlier.

Frontier, you obviously have no counter-argument to save your butt buddy Bush. So you attack me personally. Just like a Republican. You can't counter-argue, so you attack and namecall.

Come back when you grow up.

Christ, here we go again.

I know some of you consider me a leftist, deviant scum sucking commie piece of shit (which I'm not), but I thought Bush's jokes were funny this time. Imagine that.

Umm, I was under the impression that was part of the Democratic platform...

Funny how you guys on the right accuse Clinton of doing nothing to stop Hussein or terrorism when we finnaly get attacked, until you can use the information against the left. Then you make a big stink about how much the Clinton admin was watching Hussein.

And you end by saying:
"SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED AND TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY."

The Clinton Admin's lies never resulted in the deaths of over 600 US soldiers and the destruction of nearly a century of foreign relations.

They didn't feel the information was damning enough to start a war; they waited for proof and for the UN to go through the motions to find the truth.

Bush didn't wait. He shot from the hip and missed, and alienated all our allies and the arab world in the process. Not to mention the cost to us in the lost lives of our brothers and sisters and the titanic debt our children will be paying when we're dead.

You want to talk about lies how about how counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke says Bush dropped the ball on terrorism. This from a man who has been the expert since Regan.

The lie that Iraq wasn't a target till after Afghanistan. D. Rumsfeld was calling for war with Iraq days after 9-11, even thoug heverybody was telling him that Saddam had nothing to do with it.

Fricken' sellout.

I dont find internet pop-up ads funny at all either.

Tell that to Sean "Morons" Hannity.
Tell that to Bill "Pinheads" O'Reilly.
Tell that to Rush "Deviants" Limbaugh.

They call names every day. Yet you say that Democrats attack? Not with HALF the viciousness of a Republican.

??

The link that you posted about families of nearly 600 dead soldiers had pop-ups.

I stay out of bickering about the gov't..
Big brother is watching. Im sure its just a matter of time before they censor the internet.

It's their job to express their opinion-truth. I thought we were talking about people in office...

Actually, the story was a transcript of Bush's speech.

If it had pop-ups, then whoops, but I'm on a work computer and they block em.

Oh fuck off WilMac. You have done just as much name calling in the past.

I find it funny that you respond to all the Dems statements with a joke the President made. You are super partisan boy.

Kerry made a joke back in '88 that about the assassination of President Bush. He said something like 'The Secret Service has orders to shoot Quail if anyone kills the President'. That could be taken as very offensive. I think it is funny too. It is funny just like the President's WMD comments were funny.

Bush's support and praise of the troops is well documented. He wasn't making fun of the death of our soldiers. The correlation is ridiculous. One parent of a soldier that died was quoted as saying he thought it was funny, and was not offended by it at all.

Where's NY Madman these days???
I'm sure he'd have something to add to all of this. :p

Here's the lies President Bush made to send us to war. They may have said that there were WMD's before but the way Bush uses the information is to bend the nation into supporting a false war.

State of the Union 2003. Second half.

THE PRESIDENT:

There are days when our fellow citizens do not hear news about the war on terror. There's never a day when I do not learn of another threat, or receive reports of operations in progress, or give an order in this global war against a scattered network of killers. The war goes on, and we are winning. (Applause.)
Terrorism will never end, and it's yet to be determined if we're breeding more US hatred by invading an Arab country

We are working closely with other nations to prevent further attacks. America and coalition countries have uncovered and stopped terrorist conspiracies targeting the American embassy in Yemen, the American embassy in Singapore, a Saudi military base, ships in the Straits of Hormuz and the Straits the Gibraltar. We've broken al Qaeda cells in Hamburg, Milan, Madrid, London, Paris, as well as, Buffalo, New York.
The Buffalo cell was never proven to be a terrorist cell, the government later admitted having no evidence.

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.
This is true but under this line of thought N. Korea is a MUCH bigger target than Iraq

America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm.
But then we told them to Fuck off
We're strongly supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world.
But we don't trust their assesments and send in our own teams anyway

On the Korean Peninsula, an oppressive regime rules a people living in fear and starvation. Throughout the 1990s, the United States relied on a negotiated framework to keep North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons. We now know that that regime was deceiving the world, and developing those weapons all along. And today the North Korean regime is using its nuclear program to incite fear and seek concessions. America and the world will not be blackmailed. (Applause.)
These guys openly admited to pursuing WMD's and we do nothing. Iraq has no WMD's and says so, so we decide they're the bigger threat

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism,(LIE) with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)
Translation: he has alot of oil that we wanted

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement.(Another LIE) He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country.(Yet another LIE) Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.lie, sanctions obviously worked, he couldn't afford to develop WMD's

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
(The LIES continue)

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax (they were wrong) -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
But Bush's own inspector says they've been destroyed

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
But Bush's own inspector says they've been destroyed

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.lie In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
They didn't exist

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
But Bush's own inspector says they've been destroyed


From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs.(LIE) These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
They never existed

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. (LIE) Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
Obviously not WMD's since none were found

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. (Here's another LIE) To the contrary; he is deceiving.(True! But not about the WMD's) From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves.(LIE) Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack..
THE BIG LIE. This is the lie that got reluctant people to support the war

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Another HUGE lie that tried to direct the anger of 9-11 to Saddam even though there was no connection.

The rest of the State of the Union is spent justifing why we should go to war.

Rather than responding to your ridiculous analysis of the SOTU, I will just call you a poopoo head.

Since when did faulty intelligence = knowingly lying to someone?

Since as long as the US has been in the intelligence business.

If you still feel that attacking Iraq was a good thing, you need some serious education.

Call me uneducated then. Enlighten me as to why it was bad. Top 3 reasons should suffice.

I am waiting as well professor.

1) There Is No Justification for Going to War.

What was Iraq's act of aggression against us that justifies war? There has been no attack on the US, no Iraqi threat of war, no Iraqi connection to September 11.

War should be a last recourse of self-defense, a step to be taken only when all other alternatives have been exhausted. What the Bush Administration is planning is an act of aggression, not an act of self-defense. The international coalition that fought the first Gulf War was cemented by the principle that one country cannot invade another without provocation. Now the White House is poised to dismiss the coalition to launch an unprovoked invasion of Iraq. This would violate the US's historic policy against using force preemptively. We should not go to war against a distant country that has not attacked us.

2) Iraq Does Not Pose a Clear and Present Danger

The White House says we should invade Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction. But during the 1990s United Nations weapons inspectors dismantled all of Iraq's major chemical, biological and nuclear weapons facilities and destroyed nearly all of Iraq's weapons and long-range missiles. In terms of conventional arms, Iraq's military is now at one-third of its pre-Gulf War strength. According to Ex-Marine and former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter, Iraq presents "absolutely nothing" of a military threat. And given Hussein's natural desire for self-preservation, it is highly unlikely he would launch any attack that would result in his destruction. Since deterrence is working, why should the US start a bloody war that would undoubtedly lead to massive human suffering? (1)

3) When It Comes to Invading Iraq, the US Has Few Allies

The international community supports sending weapons inspectors to Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime, but it does not support the White House's goal of "regime change." Many countries in the Middle East are opposed to a war with Iraq. Our allies in Europe think an invasion is foolhardy. Anti-war marches in England and Italy have drawn hundreds of thousands of people. An invasion of Iraq would isolate the US from the rest of the world and shatter the principles of international cooperation and mutual defense that are key to US and global security. (2)

4) An Attack on Iraq Would Make Us Less Safe

An isolated US is an unsafe country. Attacking Iraq without provocation will ignite anti-American sentiment around the world, disrupting efforts to weaken terrorist networks. Any attack would also further destabilize a Middle East already inflamed by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While the benefits of invading Iraq are murky, the costs are all-too-clear.

5) A Costly Invasion Would Take Resources Away from Much Needed Priorities at Home

This is a war of choice, not a war of necessity. And it's a poorly thought out choice, one that will distract from the social problems here at home. It is estimated that any full-scale invasion of Iraq will cost up to $200 billion. During the first Gulf War, allies like Japan covered 80 percent of the cost. This won't happen again, leaving US taxpayers—already facing budget deficits—to pick up the costs. Instead of spending $200 billion on an unnecessary war, we should be investing in our nation's overcrowded schools and failing health care system. (3)

6) Invading Iraq Would Be Extremely DifficultÐand Without a Clear Victory

An invasion of Iraq will not be nearly as easy as kicking the Taliban out of Kabul. Although Hussein's army has been weakened, Iraq's forces remain large enough to put up a formidable defense. And it is likely that Iraqi forces will be far more determined to defend Baghdad than they were to defend Kuwait City, dragging US forces into a bloody fight in heavily populated areas. And even if the US does overthrow Hussein, what next? As the experience in Afghanistan shows, throwing out a government is easier than putting a new one together. An invasion without allies would leave the US to enforce a peace in a chaotic country fractured by ethnic conflicts.

7) A War Would Kill Thousands of People

An assault on Baghdad would result in far more American casualties than the war in Afghanistan. And the toll on Iraqis would be far higher. According to an estimate by Physicians for Social Responsibility, a full scale invasion of Iraq could lead to the deaths of as many as 80,000 innocent civilians, or approximately 100 times the number of people killed during the US bombing of Afghanistan. (4)

8) We Should Not Wage a War for Oil

The Bush Administration says we must invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein has violated UN Security Council resolutions, is abusing his own people, and pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Yet the US supports the nuclear-armed dictator of Pakistan and provides billions of dollars in aid to the governments of Turkey and nuclear-armed Israel, both of which are in violation of multiple UN resolutions. The blatant double standard makes one wonder: What is this war really about? The short answer is oil. Iraq has the second largest proven reserves of petroleum, and US oil companies, which exercise immense influence over the current administration, are eager to tap into Iraqi oil. This is wrong. We should not attack people in a far-off country to take their resources.

9) Other Options Besides War Are Available

When North Korea announced that it was close to constructing a nuclear weapon, the Bush Administration didn't threaten war—instead, it started cooperating with our allies in Asia to defuse the situation. The North Korean experience shows a way of dealing with weapons of mass destruction and proves that negotiations are preferable to war. If the White House's end goal is to enhance our security, then dialogue is preferable to conflict.

10) Opposition to the War Is Growing

Americans know deep down that this impending war makes no sense. According to recent polls, 40 percent of Americans are against a war with Iraq.

Our task is to turn the public's latent misgivings into blatant opposition. If the citizens say loud and clear that we don't want a war against Iraq, it will be more difficult for the president to go through with his scheme. We have to educate our fellow citizens about why war with Iraq is wrong, and then hold our elected representatives accountable to the will of the people.

From before the war

Good job, you have mastered the copy and paste technique.

Freeing 25,000,000 people from a brutal dictator was such a horrible thing to do.

Have you watched the fucking news lately ?

Americans died over there for no reason.
Our government is spending billions of dollars a day on nothing. Our government is giving Iraq billions of dollars that should stay in our country.

Shame on you for thinking this war was a good thing. Not a single good thing has come from it, or ever will come from it.

How ignorant can you be ?

Nice comeback.

If the priority was in fact the liberation of the Iraqi people why was that argument not presented to the U.N. or by the Bush administration until AFTER the start of the war?

That idea was spun into the equation only after the start of the war to shift the focus since the initail argument of WMD and terrorist ties held no weight.

When did the U.S. policy shift towards invading countries and forcefully removing men that are considered brutal dictators? If that is in fact our policy, then why have we avoided Africa or deposing Castro? Do we not consider Castro a brutal dictator?

The interesting thing about this, is that really isn't a Republican Vs Democrat thing. Politicians don't do what they think is right and just. They do what public opinion polls tell them they should do.

Weather or not Clinton felt deposing Sadaam or going to war with Iraq was justified and weather or not he wanted to go in there with guns blazing, there wasn't the level of public support to justify action.

If he HAD invaded Iraq without public support, rest assured it would have been the Republicans putting him on the hot seat for it. It makes it a little easier to question Bush in this case because of Iraqi oil, his administration's ties to oil and defence related business and Sr's proir dealings with Sadaam.

Regardless of who was in the White House, 9/11 created a charged atmosphere where the shift in public opinion about millitary agression has changed. All the administration needed was to present a feasable argument laced in half truths and speculation based on investigative guesswork and the majority hopped on board while the vocal minority were labeled as being anti-American.

Democracy in a nutshell: Mob rule!

We'll analyze the facts later.

Like this:

Or this:

were all that witty... :rolleyes:

Excellent post Socal!

I never said freeing the people was the main priority. Saying it had nothing to do with it is a complete lie though.

Nope, you are not alone. I am tired of rehashing the same old shit. In ten years we will see the results. I believe they will be positive.

Gas will still be the same price or higher.
Terrorists will still blow shit up.
Americans will still be gullible idiots.
Our government will still be run by retards.

Nothing has changed in the last 20 years, why do you think it will get any better in the next 10 ?

I don't share your pessimistic outlook of the world Ian. Anyway I was speaking specifically of Iraq. If they can manage to govern themselves without having a despot in control I think that will be a good thing.

Because Bush will be out of the White house.

Who gives a fuck about Iraq ?
Why do we care about any of these shitty little countries with they're whacked governments and whacked religions ?

Why doesn't America focus on America for a change ?

AY-MEN.

Wow, and here I thought you were on the left. That was a very right-wing thing to say.

See, I'm neither.
The whole left, right, liberal, bullshit is just a way to divide a country and does nothing to help America.

If I had to chose a party it would be the "Common Fucking Sense Party®"

I agree. Thats why I'm not worried what the world things of us, screw 'um. Their issues are just that, theirs. If kickin the shit out of some 3rd world despot wanna be god makes us safer, so be it.

Make them fear you, don't live in fear. Thats not living.

We just need to do it with a SEAL team or Sam Fisher or a space laser instead of sending an entire army in there and killing too many civilians and troops, and destroying too many resources.

I play video games, I know we're capable of it.

Can I make t-shirts and signs?

That was funny as hell!

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.

Good God is WilMac still here? I thought that moron would get the clue that no one here likes him/her or whatever "it" is. He should do what those Hollywood liberlas said they would do and leave the country. Maybe then we could clean things up a bit.

War for oil huh? :rolleyes: Man do I wish it was. Then we wouldnt be paying these monster high gas prices. Shouldnt gas be like $.80 a gallon now with all this Iraqi oil flooding our markets? Oh wait, what Iraqi oil?

Can someone please explain to me why they keep beating this dead horse?