Posted: 6/20/2014 8:21 AM
Posted: 6/20/2014 8:58 AM
Posted: 6/20/2014 9:09 AM
Posted: 6/20/2014 9:21 AM
Posted: 6/20/2014 9:47 AM
kingsvol wrote: Seems ISIS has found chemical weapons on the way to taking Bagdad. The U.S. Military left them there when the pullout started. So we found these WNDs but I don't remember seeing news articles reporting this. But now they are reporting them and no apologies from the Bush lied people died side.So Bush and the intelligence reports were correct all along. Hmmmmmmmmm.
Posted: 6/20/2014 9:50 AM
Posted: 6/20/2014 10:13 AM
"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 Bill 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 Bill 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
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 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 redefine 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 th! e 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 destroy 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
Last edited 6/20/2014 10:20 AM by roadvol
Posted: 6/20/2014 10:21 AM
drewactual wrote: we knew about them for years.. the majority of them are in syria.. it was reported elsewhere, just not here- where it was carefully and willfully neglected by the MSM, and not even played by the alternative news media, which i thought at the time (and still do) was dang strange. i was in doha Qatar, at As Sayliyah, when the reports and later live feeds arrived at CENTCOM.. we sat in on that initial briefing, and then later briefings with members of the press sitting right behind us watching it as well. it has infuriated me for a long time when encountering a sniveling democrat/liberal/Bush hater when they contend 'there were no WMD's' and snort it over and over- when I know damn well there were and are.
Posted: 6/20/2014 10:23 AM
Posted: 6/20/2014 10:37 AM
indyv wrote: we have to get the complete hell out of the ME and stay out unless we are attacked again....and then 40 100 megatonners all over the entire area.....if that does not stop these crazy religious fools, another 40.......a nest of religious fundamentalist is like a nest of cockroaches.....you have to kill them to get rid of them and then they will still show up somewhere else.....
Last edited 6/20/2014 10:50 AM by drewactual
Posted: 6/20/2014 10:40 AM
fuzzynavol wrote: Roady must be arguing that Bush was just bowing under pressure from the Democrats to invade Iraq, so the buck doesn't really stop with him. That would be in-keeping with his I'm-never-wrong approach to politics.
Posted: 6/20/2014 11:04 AM
Posted: 6/20/2014 11:06 AM
kingsvol wrote: What?
Posted: 6/20/2014 11:07 AM
Posted: 6/20/2014 11:08 AM
fuzzynavol wrote: But I'll elaborate on my opinion and maybe answer what you were trying to ask. The war was Bush's decision and his mistake. Regrettably, I personally supported his decision to invade under the mistaken assumption that "they must know even more than they're telling us if they're willing to go over there and start a war." Turns out they knew less than they thought they knew, and (as with most other issues) their various biases clouded their judgement disastrously. I think the majority of prominent Democrats didn't have the courage to consider an anti-war stand. There could be no up-side. If the war was a strategic success, they'd be positioned in the wrong, and if it turned out a mistake, they were supporting the president during war-time. It was the safe position. For denialist republicans to point to them now as if they're somehow also to blame is a sad testimony to their immaturity.
Posted: 6/20/2014 11:31 AM
Posted: 6/20/2014 11:35 AM
Posted: 6/20/2014 11:43 AM
Posted: 6/20/2014 12:03 PM
MSN PrivacyLegalAdvertise on MSNAbout our adsRSS
© 2014 Microsoft|