The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Colin Powell walked into my office and said: " I wonder what we are going to do when we invade Iraq, comb the country from one end to the pother, and find no WMD."

As related by Collen Powell's Chief of Staff. Lawrence Wilkerson

And yet there is STILL no proof that Bush lied.

Actually if there were no WMD, Bush was lied to by out going President Clinton, Clinton's staff and the Democrats in Congress about Iraq's WMD. Even Colin Powell expressed that the greatest threat to the region was Iraq's WMD (that was before he decided a person's race is more important than their integrity).

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to deliver their weapons of mass destruction 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

When you bring up factual history, showing that the Democrats believed in WMD, some of them even in security groups to know, it throws a monkey wrench into the process for people like Dildo that just want to believe Bush was evil and bad, and that Obama good and holy.

The really sad part of all this is that they (people like Dildo) can never and will never be able to prove that Bush lied, but they will still hold to that lie as an attack method to defend evil people like Obama.

So Powell lied to the UN? Listen to Powell's own words presenting evidence including photos which convinced the world Iraq had WMD. Powell claimed there is no doubt in his mind they have WMD and will use them.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/6/de ... _speech_at" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Now Powell claims he knew Iraq had no WMD???

Where are the WMDs???????

elklindo69 wrote:Where are the WMDs???????

Syria, Iran, Russia, Germany, China - all the places that UNSEARCHED Diplomatic vehicles and ships were seen traveling to during the 30 days warning period leading up to the invasion.

What do you suppose cargo containers leaving "Milk Factories" under Diplomatic cover, put on ships, really had in them?

Where are the WMD's

You can bet when Hillary runs for President in 2016 Republicans many of us will be asking her that same question. Bush can't run again for President so yeah, let's hold those lying bastards accountable, starting with those running for offices. Kerry should be removed from his position also. WHERE ARE THE WMDS :lol: :lol: :lol:

"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. He must be stopped."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Every operational person in the intelligence community has stated that the reports to the President did not support WMD in Iraq. That they were surprised to hear the speeches being given by the executive branch under Bush. Yes, there is a clear case to say that Bush might have been mislead by his staff. That Bush was simply incompetent. Still, it is clear that some group within Bush's close advisers was fabricating a know false story to support an effort that Bush and his staff wanted to make at any cost and that the top leaders in the intelligence community were willing to go along to some extent and make reports that seemed to support the idea of WMD in Iraq if not read carefully and if all the caveats were completely ignored. Some Republican congress people have now stated that they wish they had carefully read the intelligence reports, which did not support the Bush administration rhetoric, and not not relied on the Bush administration and their political careers,.

The usual characters, justupid and liar leroy, will continue to make every effort to fool themselves and their target fear filled war monger friends.

BilboBagend wrote:Every operational person in the intelligence community has stated that the reports to the President did not support WMD in Iraq.

Actually, those people you're quoting, which you didn't name or quote, changed their stated positions AFTER it became fun to claim Bush lied, but, not a single one of them has presented ANY evidence to support their claims, not a single one of them.

So, if these people you claim knew that Bush didn't have any reason to believe in WMD's in Iraq really believe that, they would have had to be in a position to have the intel themselves, or they are just guessing - if they were in a position to have the intel, they would have access to the information to prove he lied - but, as is typical of the "Bush Lied" people, not a single swinging dick has brought any evidence forward to show that Bush lied, not one.

Every operational person in the intelligence community has stated that the reports to the President did not support WMD in Iraq.

REALLY???

Senator John Kerry, Head of Senate Intelligence Committee:
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force 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."

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

Senate Armed Intelligence Services Committee members Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Oct. 9, 1998, Letter to President Clinton: "[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."

Yes, all later recanted when the evidence came out.

As I said, the double down on stupidity and malevolence twins, liar leroy and justupid.

As I said, the double down on stupidity and malevolence twins, liar leroy and justupid.

Facts are considered "stupidity" when liberals don't agree with them. :lol:

Facts are, Powell, Kerry, both Clintons and other libeals all went before the public and swore under oath they had evidence and proof that Iraq had WMD and would use them...this was before Bush became President. It's part of history and try as liberals might to deny it; it was Democrats that started the war cries and claiming Sadam had WMDs, it was the liberals mentioned above and numerous others, all before Bush came along.

BilboBagend wrote:Yes, all later recanted when the evidence came out.

There has been NO EVIDENCE OUTED, NOTHING CAME OUT, NO EVIDENCE THAT BUSH LIED HAS BEEN PRESENTED, EVER.

Dumbass.

Yes, all later recanted when the evidence came out.

What you ranting about, what evidence? Plus Kerry, the Clintons, Powell and numerous other liberals were claiming Sadam had WMD before Bush even came into office...how could Bush be the one who mislead them??? :?:

RealJustme wrote:

Yes, all later recanted when the evidence came out.

What you ranting about, what evidence? Plus Kerry, the Clintons, Powell and numerous other liberals were claiming Sadam had WMD before Bush even came into office...how could Bush be the one who mislead them??? :?:

Dildo will never admit that, he's fixed on Bush Lied, that it was all faked by Bush, he can't read dates associated with those peoples comments.

Dildo, if Bush lied, how do you explain the Clinton Intel community and Democrat Politicians claiming Saddam had WMD's?

“[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.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

Note how the date, October 9, 1998 was before Bush was even elected?

Notice who all signed it?

Uh, liar leroy, Saddam did have WMDs, then they were used on his people, then he got into a great deal of hiot water. Then he lost several military engagements and political status in the world, then he destroyed his WMDs long before Bushy II. And he was inspected to death and no WMDs were found. Then the Bush administration cooked the intelligence information. There is no controversy anymore about this. The only controversy is over just how much Bush knew and how much he drove the lies. Yes, incompetence blinded by extreme desire vs criminal action. Did Bush Cheney literally request the lies or simply focus and bully the lies out of the intelligence community.

BilboBagend wrote:Uh, liar leroy, Saddam did have WMDs, then they were used on his people, then he got into a great deal of hiot water. Then he lost several military engagements and political status in the world, then he destroyed his WMDs long before Bushy II. And he was inspected to death and no WMDs were found. Then the Bush administration cooked the intelligence information. There is no controversy anymore about this. The only controversy is over just how much Bush knew and how much he drove the lies. Yes, incompetence blinded by extreme desire vs criminal action. Did Bush Cheney literally request the lies or simply focus and bully the lies out of the intelligence community.

You really are a stupid shit Dildo - Saddam's genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988.

Notice how the democrats and Clinton's people are claiming WMD's before Bush was elected and even after he was elected - try and break through your blinders and see the facts for once.

If Bush lied, then he's only guilty of repeating what the Clinton administration and people were telling him, which means he wasn't lying, he was being LIED TO BY CLINTON'S PEOPLE.

Notice how the democrats and Clinton's people are claiming WMD's before Bush was elected and even after he was elected - try and break through your blinders and see the facts for once.

If Bush lied, then he's only guilty of repeating what the Clinton administration and people were telling him, which means he wasn't lying, he was being LIED TO BY CLINTON'S PEOPLE.

Well said, Bravo!!! Bush's biggest failure was he gave liberals credibility they didn't deserve.

BilboBagend wrote:...And he was inspected to death and no WMDs were found.

Almost forgot to comment on this - I bet that you're going to tell us that the UN Inspectors were able, on demand, without weeks of delays, inspect any site they wanted. Maybe you can explain the denial and then delays in being permitted to inspect a "Milk" plant, and watching increased numbers of trucks enter and leave the facility before the UN Inspectors were actually permitted to inspect "some" areas, but not all areas of the plant.... One of those same Milk plants was where Diplomatic Protected (against Search/Inspection) vehicles/containers were removed and shipped on cargo ships out of Iraq during the 30 days warning period we stupidly gave Saddam.

There were no WMDs in Iraq...Bush said it himself!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSN-Kku_rFE

There were no WMDs in Iraq...Bush said it himself!!!

So why did the Clintons lie?

It's amazing how the malignant liars ignore all timelines in this stupidity on their part.

It's a necessary ignorance needed to support their dishonest disjointed arguments.

BilboBagend wrote:It's amazing how the malignant liars ignore all timelines in this stupidity on their part.

It's a necessary ignorance needed to support their dishonest disjointed arguments.

It's amazing that Dildo is calling himself a MALIGNANT LIAR and can only throw around dishonest disjointed arguments in his attempt to deny the facts.

Colin Powell tried to work with the conservatives but Bush lied to so many people that Powell couldn't take it any more. He trusted Bush when he said their were WMD, Bush burnt Powell and used him as a porch nigger to spread his lies. I used to not like Powell but he's recently started to stand up for what's right and I've changed my opinion. I would like to see him run for President.

Leroy = pathological

(look it up)

Freedman wrote:Colin Powell tried to work with the conservatives but Bush lied to so many people that Powell couldn't take it any more. He trusted Bush when he said their were WMD, Bush burnt Powell and used him as a porch nigger to spread his lies. I used to not like Powell but he's recently started to stand up for what's right and I've changed my opinion. I would like to see him run for President.

Freedman, you seem to be unable to comprehend date's - notice how Democrats were claiming Saddam had WMD's before Bush was even elected. Also, note that Bush left Clinton security advisers in place well into the 9/11 attacks that they kept telling him were not a threat. The fact is, the Democrat machine was in full force, claiming Saddam had WMD's, long before Bush was even elected the first time.

To date, meaning the day of this post, not a single person anywhere has presented Proof that Bush lied, but, if you believe that Bush lied, then you must also believe the Clinton and most democrats lied also, right?

It's one thing to believe that Iraq had WMDs and it's a completely different issue to invade a nation so they can find WMDs.

And from what I understand, Clinton supported international sanctions against Iraq....

elklindo69 wrote:It's one thing to believe that Iraq had WMDs and it's a completely different issue to invade a nation so they can find WMDs.

And from what I understand, Clinton supported international sanctions against Iraq....

Bush supported Sanctions also - and here is a link to a video of Clinton telling the country that Sometimes force is necessary....

Clinton setting the stage for going to war with Saddam, in his speech of 1998. Clinton admits that Sanctions are not working, that we've had to use FORCE to control Saddam....

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Clinton even extended the NO-FLY-ZONE, attacking Saddam multiple times before the Bush invasion.

And then in 1998, a group of congress people asked Clinton to invade Iraq:

"
...
In light of these developments, 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 Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski. Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.
"

Yes many Democrats including Clinton fell for the Republicans' lies that Iraq had WMD.

Freedman wrote:Yes many Democrats including Clinton fell for the Republicans' lies that Iraq had WMD.

Freedman, you are aware (I don't really think you are), that many democrats were at the same level of Military and Other groups Intelligence on Iraq during the Clinton years, and that they all claimed that Saddam had WMD's until it wasn't a popular position to have.

So, you're really showing your stupidity in that you refuse to look at things that factually dispute your positions.

Freedman, you are aware (I don't really think you are), that many democrats were at the same level of Military and Other groups Intelligence on Iraq during the Clinton years, and that they all claimed that Saddam had WMD's until it wasn't a popular position to have.

We've all heard that arguement but obviously Clinton was smarter and had concerns with that intel because he acted rationally and did not attack Iraq, the cowboy did without even trying to varify the false information. A lot of people fell for his lies including Powell who thought the information he was provided by Bush had been verified.

Freedman wrote:

Freedman, you are aware (I don't really think you are), that many democrats were at the same level of Military and Other groups Intelligence on Iraq during the Clinton years, and that they all claimed that Saddam had WMD's until it wasn't a popular position to have.

We've all heard that arguement but obviously Clinton was smarter and had concerns with that intel because he acted rationally and did not attack Iraq, the cowboy did without even trying to varify the false information. A lot of people fell for his lies including Powell who thought the information he was provided by Bush had been verified.

We've all seen how liberals will defend Clinton and Obama for doing the same things they have Crucified other Politicians for, the exact same things, and how they will deny that Clinton/Obama have said things that we have, IN CONTEXT, in their own words - it never fails to amaze me at how willfully ignorant liberals choose to remain.

So, here you are claiming that, since Clinton attacked Saddam several times, even created a War Zone, that he didn't believe in WMD's (against his own statements that he DID), and claiming that Clinton was smarter because he didn't attack Iraq, which he did several times....

You really are a stupid shit Freedman.

So, here you are claiming that, since Clinton attacked Saddam several times, even created a War Zone, that he didn't believe in WMD's (against his own statements that he DID), and claiming that Clinton was smarter because he didn't attack Iraq, which he did several times....

You really are a stupid shit Freedman

I admit, there was a lot of fog concerning Sadam's plans but Clinton's actions din't result in the death of over 4,000 Americans like Bush's did. Clinton was smarter just as Obama is being with Iran.

Freedman wrote:

So, here you are claiming that, since Clinton attacked Saddam several times, even created a War Zone, that he didn't believe in WMD's (against his own statements that he DID), and claiming that Clinton was smarter because he didn't attack Iraq, which he did several times....

You really are a stupid shit Freedman

I admit, there was a lot of fog concerning Sadam's plans but Clinton's actions din't result in the death of over 4,000 Americans like Bush's did. Clinton was smarter just as Obama is being with Iran.

Clinton's Administration and Staff that continued into the Bush administration were directly responsible for the deaths of 2,977 innocent people on 9/11 in the 4 jet attacks. Those deaths were caused by the Clinton Administrations treating of terrorism as a police action and their refusal to admit/see the threats on US Soil.

Obama wasn't "smarter in Iran" - he used our military and other resources to OVERTHROW a legal government and hand it to the Muslim Brotherhood - a Terrorist group. Obama did the same thing in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and he's working to do that same thing in Syria and several other countries.

Additionally, you have more and more of our troops being killed because of HOW OBAMA CHANGED THE ROE in Afghanistan.

Clinton's Administration and Staff that continued into the Bush administration were directly responsible for the deaths of 2,977 innocent people on 9/11 in the 4 jet attacks.

So now all of a sudden you feel the President was left a mess and what happened while he was in office, wasn't really his fault, it was the prior President's fault.

Freedman wrote:

Clinton's Administration and Staff that continued into the Bush administration were directly responsible for the deaths of 2,977 innocent people on 9/11 in the 4 jet attacks.

So now all of a sudden you feel the President was left a mess and what happened while he was in office, wasn't really his fault, it was the prior President's fault.

There you go again, waffling, diverting, misdirecting.

The issue was about WMD's and the lies - and we've clearly documented that Clinton and his administration lied about them, at least if you're going to claim that Bush lied, you have to also claim that Clinton and his staff lied. If you can admit that Clinton lied, and you understand that many of his security staff stayed on when Bush took office, you now know the basis for the fact that Bush didn't lie - it was Clinton and his people's lies that Bush was repeating, believing them, and it was Clinton's Administration that set us up for 9/11.

I suppose you believe that Bush owned everything as soon as he took office, and using that BS, you must also believe that Obama owned everything as soon as he took office, right? So, thousands of dead troops are the sole responsibility of Obama, thousands of terrorist attacks across the globe are the responsibility of Obama, terrorist attacks on our own soil are also owned by Obama.... Thanks for admitting it.

"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois)
Speech at Federal Plaza, Chicago, Illinois
October 2, 2002

"Dear Mr. President:

The events of September 11 have highlighted the vulnerability of the United States to determined terrorists. As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq.

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.

The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained. For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later.

Mr. President, all indications are that in the interest of our own national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power."

Sincerely,

Congressman Harold Ford (Democrat, Tennessee)
Senator Bob Graham (Democrat, Florida)
Congressman Tom Lantos (Democrat, California)
Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)

The most import though:

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003


There is no question that EVERYONE in the US government believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs throughout the '90s and right up to the start of the war. The bullshit about no wmds was simply politically motived by the anti-American left because they believed Bush was vulnerable and they counted on the stupidity of their cult followers to not do their homework and the dnc propaganda arm, aka the msm to regurgitate their lies ad nauseum.

There is no question that EVERYONE in the US government believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs throughout the '90s and right up to the start of the war.

So what? It was Bush that got us into a war that everyone now agrees was wrong. You can point fingers all day long at Clinton but he did the right thing, he didn't send us to a wrong war. He was smarter than that, then along came the cowboy from Texas saying "let's kill some people".

Freedman wrote:

There is no question that EVERYONE in the US government believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs throughout the '90s and right up to the start of the war.

So what? It was Bush that got us into a war that everyone now agrees was wrong. You can point fingers all day long at Clinton but he did the right thing, he didn't send us to a wrong war. He was smarter than that, then along came the cowboy from Texas saying "let's kill some people".

There you have it, the typical liberal response when they are proven wrong on something - divert, misdirect, lie, run, anything except admit that they were wrong.

Bush didn't lie, he was screwed by the Clinton Administration and staff that remained on for the Bush term - and no matter what you say, no matter how you try and deny it, it was Clinton's people that denied the threat of the 9/11 attackers and let them train in the USA.

So what? It was Bush that got us into a war that everyone now agrees was wrong. You can point fingers all day long at Clinton but he did the right thing, he didn't send us to a wrong war. He was smarter than that, then along came the cowboy from Texas saying "let's kill some people".

Nice try, but no cigar for you. Hindsight is 20/20, besides, as I showed, Bush only did what the dems asked him to do, remove Saddam Hussein. Additionally, as I showed, the US government for over 10 years agreed that Hussein had WMD, which he had previously used.

Nice try, but no cigar for you. Hindsight is 20/20, besides, as I showed, Bush only did what the dems asked him to do, remove Saddam Hussein.

Yes but they wanted it done the way Obama removed Gaddafi and Mubarak, not one America was killed. That's the type of leadership Democrats wanted in removing Hussein, not the death of of over 5,000 American soldiers to do it. Republicans need to put their hatred and violent ways behind them and study Obama's taticts for making this a safer world, without putting our people in harms way. Obama will go down in history as our best Commander in Chief we've ever had followed closely by Clinton. People now know how it's done, we'll never go back to the cowboy's shootem up way.

Yes but they wanted it done the way Obama removed Gaddafi and Mubarak, not one America was killed. That's the type of leadership Democrats wanted in removing Hussein, not the death of of over 5,000 American soldiers to do it. Republicans need to put their hatred and violent ways behind them and study Obama's taticts for making this a safer world, without putting our people in harms way. Obama will go down in history as our best Commander in Chief we've ever had followed closely by Clinton. People now know how it's done, we'll never go back to the cowboy's shootem up way.

Unfortunately for you, rewriting history doesn't work real well, Nobama didn't remove Gaddafi by a long shot. You really really should go back and read what the dems said, not what you wanted them to say. They asked for him to be confronted immediately and removed in 2001 and 2002, the public record is crystal clear and nothing you can conjure can change what they said and what they asked for. Nobama's "foreign policy", and I am being generous by calling it that, has been an unmitigated disaster for the country and the world. Nobama makes Jimmy Carter look good and that is not easy to do.

Freedman wrote: ...they wanted it done the way Obama removed Gaddafi and Mubarak, not one America was killed.

Actually, you're quite wrong - we had 4 Americans killed because of how Obama removed Gaddafi and Mubarak, it was in Benghazi that they were killed.

Additionally, masses of weapons were provided to the rebels as well as Libyan and Egyptian weapons caches that were put into the hands of the rebels - and many of them have turned up in fighting against our own troops - all because of how Obama handled the overthrowing of several countries, all of which are now under control of terrorist Islamic groups.

Obama will go down in history as one of the WORLDS WORST LEADERS, in the company of his peers, like Hitler.

Actually, you're quite wrong - we had 4 Americans killed because of how Obama removed Gaddafi and Mubarak, it was in Benghazi that they were killed.

Actually it shows Obama was spot on for removing Gaddafi, it was Gaddafi supporters that attacked our embassy. Plus the way Obama handled the attacks was brilliant. Instead of acting like a cowboy and shooting up Benghazi, he went after those involved not women and children living there. Notice that the demonstrations against America have stopped all across the Middle East? Imagine where we would be now had we sent in gun ships and killed innocents as a knee jerk response to a hand full of hold out Gaddafi supporters. I'm telling you, history will show Obama is a brilliant military tactician and strategist.

Freedman wrote:

Actually, you're quite wrong - we had 4 Americans killed because of how Obama removed Gaddafi and Mubarak, it was in Benghazi that they were killed.

Actually it shows Obama was spot on for removing Gaddafi, it was Gaddafi supporters that attacked our embassy. Plus the way Obama handled the attacks was brilliant. Instead of acting like a cowboy and shooting up Benghazi, he went after those involved not women and children living there. Notice that the demonstrations against America have stopped all across the Middle East? Imagine where we would be now had we sent in gun ships and killed innocents as a knee jerk response to a hand full of hold out Gaddafi supporters. I'm telling you, history will show Obama is a brilliant military tactician and strategist.

What planet are you living on?

Obama wasn't even honest enough to be active in the discussion/defense of the people on the ground
Obama fired people for trying to help the people on the ground
Obama blamed an innocent man for causing this
Obama denied the real cause of this
Obama inflamed the middle east and used Al-Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood to destroy countries
Obama has been killing people (innocent people) all over the middle east
Obama has done everything he can to PROTECT TERRORISTS

Imagine how Benghazi would have turned out with very precise and targeted attacks, saving the lives of our men, not harming any innocent people.....

Guess you've been missing all of this because you love the Fuehrer.

So, to be 100% on topic, Colin Powell as well as many democrats in Intel positions, including Bill Clinton, supported that Saddam had WMD's before Bush was elected as well as to the point of the restart of the war.

LOL SOS