Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

So now we're staying in Afghanistan until 2024 .. or maybe forever. So who do you trust?

+8
ZVUGKTUBM
talknstang
Markle
2seaoat
stormwatch89
TEOTWAWKI
Hospital Bob
Wordslinger
12 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 4]

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Chrissy wrote:

The UNSCOM team faced resistance from Iraq, which blocked inspections and hid deadly germ agents and warheads.[27] Clinton then threatened military action several times when Iraqi President Saddam Hussein attempted to stall the UNSCOM inspections.[28] To weaken Saddam Hussein's grip of power, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998, which instituted a policy of "regime change" against Iraq, though it explicitly stated it did not speak to the use of American military forces. On December 16–19, 1998, Clinton ordered four days of concentrated air attacks against military installations in Iraq. This was in response to Saddam's refusal to cooperate with UN inspectors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

I don't think you can run from the FACT that it was CLINTON who made it a LAW to remove sadam hussien.

This LAW was used in order to make the vote happen to go to war.

Bush carried out Clintons directive.

deal with it LOL
The LAW does NOT REQUIRE military action. This is a well worn argument set out by the Bush administration to justify military intervention.

That being said and documented below, I find it to be very unreasonable and quite disingenuous that you seem to think I should be required to argue against a point I never made.

What I said was that Clinton never sent troops into Iraq and I stand on that until I see evidence to the contrary.

You claiming that Clinton sort of, kind of, in a way really sent troops into Iraq because of the actions of the Bush administration doesn't really cut it. Really.

And Joani citing (apparently, because she doesn't give a source for her imaginary 15,000 "very special troops") an article from the ONION, a satirical publication that makes fun of current events and is noted for its cutting political HUMOR also in no way shape or form provides any documentation to support her claim of troop involvement other than the fact that she was either unfamiliar with the publication or didn't read it completely.

If you want to argue some point other than the one I made: Clinton did not send troops into Iraq, then argue it with someone else, not me because I said no more nor less than what I did say, Clinton did not send troops to Iraq.



The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

This act required the President to designate one or more qualified recipients of assistance, with the primary requirement being opposition to the present Saddam Hussein regime. Such groups should, according to the Act, include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, who are opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime, and are committed to democratic values, peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, respect for human rights, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime. On February 4, 1999 President Clinton designated seven groups as qualifying for assistance under the Act. (see Note to 22 U.S.C. 2151 and 64 Fed. Reg. 67810). The groups were
The Iraqi National Accord,
The Iraqi National Congress,
The Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan,
The Kurdistan Democratic Party,
The Movement for Constitutional Monarchy,
The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and
The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
The Act authorized the President to assist all such groups with: broadcasting assistance (for radio and television broadcasting), military assistance (training and equipment), and humanitarian assistance (for individuals fleeing Saddam Hussein). The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes, except as authorized under the Act in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
In November 1998 President Clinton stated that "The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

othershoe1030 wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:So, how many troops did Clinton send into Iraq, I forget?
Over 15,000.






President Clinton deployed more than 15,000 very special U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf region.
The phrase "very special forces" was a tip off Joani. I think it is just possible that you are referring to this article?…by the ONION, LOL. The short transport plane! Too funny!!!!! Read the whole article. It is hilarious.

Clinton Deploys Very Special Forces To Iraq
NEWS • Politics • Middle East • Disabilities • Clinton Administration • ISSUE 35•02 • Jan 20, 1999
Facebook1.2K
Twitter47
Google Plus7
WASHINGTON, DC—Preparing for another possible showdown with Iraq, President Clinton deployed more than 15,000 very special U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf region Tuesday.


Sgt. Tommy Dolber, who loves baseball and rollerskating, leads a group of very special forces in maneuvers near the Iraq-Kuwait border.

Clinton said the objective of the mission, dubbed Operation Great Job!, is twofold: to keep pressure on Saddam Hussein to permit the return of U.N. weapons inspectors, and to provide America's very special forces with a positive, rewarding, esteem-building experience.

"With Operation Great Job!, we send the message loud and clear to Saddam Hussein that his open defiance of the United Nations and international law will not be tolerated," Clinton said. "We also send the equally important message to our own troops that what's important is not whether you defeat the enemy, but that you try your best and have fun."

Added Clinton: "Hooray, U.S. troops!"


http://www.theonion.com/articles/clinton-deploys-very-special-forces-to-iraq,645/


http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=41766

Do you really think we conducted precision air strikes, including the tomahawk missile, in Iraq without special forces on the ground?

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

PkrBum wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:So, how many troops did Clinton send into Iraq, I forget?
Over 15,000.






President Clinton deployed more than 15,000 very special U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf region.
Why do we keep having this same conversation? Do people really not remember such recent events?
Talk about not remembering?! The 15,000 number came from an article published by the ONION for crying out loud.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/clinton-deploys-very-special-forces-to-iraq,645/

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

This is all so surreal.  When  the republicans thought the iraq occupation was a great thing,  they gave Bush all the credit for it.
But now that they see what a bunch of crap it was,  they give Clinton the credit for it.  lol

You just can't make this shit up.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

China and Russia both kill millions of their citizens and we do NADA...Saddam gets framed for gassing a couple hundred Kurds and we go..OH HELL NO..this means war....it's all showtime and we are idiots for going along with it.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Joanimaroni wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:So, how many troops did Clinton send into Iraq, I forget?
Over 15,000.






President Clinton deployed more than 15,000 very special U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf region.
The phrase "very special forces" was a tip off Joani. I think it is just possible that you are referring to this article?…by the ONION, LOL. The short transport plane! Too funny!!!!! Read the whole article. It is hilarious.

Clinton Deploys Very Special Forces To Iraq
NEWS • Politics • Middle East • Disabilities • Clinton Administration • ISSUE 35•02 • Jan 20, 1999
Facebook1.2K
Twitter47
Google Plus7
WASHINGTON, DC—Preparing for another possible showdown with Iraq, President Clinton deployed more than 15,000 very special U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf region Tuesday.


Sgt. Tommy Dolber, who loves baseball and rollerskating, leads a group of very special forces in maneuvers near the Iraq-Kuwait border.

Clinton said the objective of the mission, dubbed Operation Great Job!, is twofold: to keep pressure on Saddam Hussein to permit the return of U.N. weapons inspectors, and to provide America's very special forces with a positive, rewarding, esteem-building experience.

"With Operation Great Job!, we send the message loud and clear to Saddam Hussein that his open defiance of the United Nations and international law will not be tolerated," Clinton said. "We also send the equally important message to our own troops that what's important is not whether you defeat the enemy, but that you try your best and have fun."

Added Clinton: "Hooray, U.S. troops!"


http://www.theonion.com/articles/clinton-deploys-very-special-forces-to-iraq,645/

http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=41766

Do you really think we conducted precision air strikes, including the tomahawk missile, in Iraq without special forces on the ground?
I think air strikes are air strikes. And just for entertainment I'll ask why we'd send even special troops into an area that we were bombing? Doesn't make sense. Maybe in 50 years or when someone leaks secret information we'll learn that there were 25 special forces troops on the ground during the air strikes but until then I'll just stick with "no troops on the ground".

BTW where did you get that imaginary 15,000 number? Are you saying he sent in 15,000 troops and we just don't know about it?

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Bob wrote:This is all so surreal.  When  the republicans thought the iraq occupation was a great thing,  they gave Bush all the credit for it.
But now that they see what a bunch of crap it was,  they give Clinton the credit for it.  lol

You just can't make this shit up.
You got that right!

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

TEOTWAWKI wrote:China and Russia both kill millions of their citizens and we do NADA...Saddam gets framed for gassing a couple hundred Kurds and we go..OH HELL NO..this means war....it's all showtime and we are idiots for going along with it.
Any excuse is better than no excuse I guess? When the MIC wants a war they get a war and we idiots unfurl our flags and fall into line. It is sickening. When war ceases to be profitable there will no longer be any war. Too many people making money on it.

Sal

Sal

TEOTWAWKI wrote:China and Russia both kill millions of their citizens and we do NADA...Saddam gets framed for gassing a couple hundred Kurds and we go..OH HELL NO..this means war....it's all showtime and we are idiots for going along with it.

If that's the reason, we sure waited long enough.

The Kurds were gassed by Saddam in 1988.

We invaded Iraq in 2003.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Rumsfeld helped Iraq get chemical weapons

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

othershoe1030 wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:So, how many troops did Clinton send into Iraq, I forget?
Over 15,000.






President Clinton deployed more than 15,000 very special U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf region.
The phrase "very special forces" was a tip off Joani. I think it is just possible that you are referring to this article?…by the ONION, LOL. The short transport plane! Too funny!!!!! Read the whole article. It is hilarious.

Clinton Deploys Very Special Forces To Iraq
NEWS • Politics • Middle East • Disabilities • Clinton Administration • ISSUE 35•02 • Jan 20, 1999
Facebook1.2K
Twitter47
Google Plus7
WASHINGTON, DC—Preparing for another possible showdown with Iraq, President Clinton deployed more than 15,000 very special U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf region Tuesday.


Sgt. Tommy Dolber, who loves baseball and rollerskating, leads a group of very special forces in maneuvers near the Iraq-Kuwait border.

Clinton said the objective of the mission, dubbed Operation Great Job!, is twofold: to keep pressure on Saddam Hussein to permit the return of U.N. weapons inspectors, and to provide America's very special forces with a positive, rewarding, esteem-building experience.

"With Operation Great Job!, we send the message loud and clear to Saddam Hussein that his open defiance of the United Nations and international law will not be tolerated," Clinton said. "We also send the equally important message to our own troops that what's important is not whether you defeat the enemy, but that you try your best and have fun."

Added Clinton: "Hooray, U.S. troops!"


http://www.theonion.com/articles/clinton-deploys-very-special-forces-to-iraq,645/
http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=41766

Do you really think we conducted precision air strikes, including the tomahawk missile, in Iraq without special forces on the ground?
[color:bc0d=#3366cc]I think air strikes are air strikes. And just for entertainment I'll ask why we'd send even special troops into an area that we were bombing? Doesn't make sense. Maybe in 50 years or when someone leaks secret information we'll learn that there were 25 special forces troops on the ground during the air strikes but until then I'll just stick with "no troops on the ground".

BTW where did you get that imaginary 15,000 number? Are you saying he sent in 15,000 troops and we just don't know about it?
I said, Clinton sent MORE than 15,000 troops. They were deployed to the Persian Gulf.

You are absolutely correct regarding your military stategy question....... And just for entertainment I'll ask why we'd send even special troops into an area that we were bombing?.

Air strikes are never ever ever conducted with troops on the ground. Rolling Eyes  The US never ever ever has intelligence teams gathering information in order to carry out precision air strikes........They just guess where the targets are.

Sal

Sal

Bob wrote:Rumsfeld helped Iraq get chemical weapons

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html
Death merchant ...

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Sal wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:China and Russia both kill millions of their citizens and we do NADA...Saddam gets framed for gassing a couple hundred Kurds and we go..OH HELL NO..this means war....it's all showtime and we are idiots for going along with it.

If that's the reason, we sure waited long enough.

The Kurds were gassed by Saddam in 1988.

We invaded Iraq in 2003.
Facts again, dang. It would be funny if it weren't so awful.

Sal

Sal

Joanimaroni wrote:
I said, Clinton sent MORE than 15,000 troops.

You should stop saying that now.

Air strikes are never ever ever conducted with troops on the ground. Rolling Eyes  The US never ever ever has intelligence teams gathering information in order to carry out precision air strikes........They just guess where the targets are.  
We have to have troops on the ground to figure out where the targets are??

What? ...

... do they sneak in and put a bullseye down, or something?

lmao

You should really stop now.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Joanimaroni wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:So, how many troops did Clinton send into Iraq, I forget?
Over 15,000.






President Clinton deployed more than 15,000 very special U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf region.
The phrase "very special forces" was a tip off Joani. I think it is just possible that you are referring to this article?…by the ONION, LOL. The short transport plane! Too funny!!!!! Read the whole article. It is hilarious.

Clinton Deploys Very Special Forces To Iraq
NEWS • Politics • Middle East • Disabilities • Clinton Administration • ISSUE 35•02 • Jan 20, 1999
Facebook1.2K
Twitter47
Google Plus7
WASHINGTON, DC—Preparing for another possible showdown with Iraq, President Clinton deployed more than 15,000 very special U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf region Tuesday.


Sgt. Tommy Dolber, who loves baseball and rollerskating, leads a group of very special forces in maneuvers near the Iraq-Kuwait border.

Clinton said the objective of the mission, dubbed Operation Great Job!, is twofold: to keep pressure on Saddam Hussein to permit the return of U.N. weapons inspectors, and to provide America's very special forces with a positive, rewarding, esteem-building experience.

"With Operation Great Job!, we send the message loud and clear to Saddam Hussein that his open defiance of the United Nations and international law will not be tolerated," Clinton said. "We also send the equally important message to our own troops that what's important is not whether you defeat the enemy, but that you try your best and have fun."

Added Clinton: "Hooray, U.S. troops!"


http://www.theonion.com/articles/clinton-deploys-very-special-forces-to-iraq,645/
http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=41766

Do you really think we conducted precision air strikes, including the tomahawk missile, in Iraq without special forces on the ground?
[color:52f6=#3366cc]I think air strikes are air strikes. And just for entertainment I'll ask why we'd send even special troops into an area that we were bombing? Doesn't make sense. Maybe in 50 years or when someone leaks secret information we'll learn that there were 25 special forces troops on the ground during the air strikes but until then I'll just stick with "no troops on the ground".

BTW where did you get that imaginary 15,000 number? Are you saying he sent in 15,000 troops and we just don't know about it?
I said, Clinton sent MORE than 15,000 troops. They were deployed to the Persian Gulf.

You are absolutely correct regarding your military stategy question....... And just for entertainment I'll ask why we'd send even special troops into an area that we were bombing?.

Air strikes are never ever ever conducted with troops on the ground. Rolling Eyes  The US never ever ever has intelligence teams gathering information in order to carry out precision air strikes........They just guess where the targets are.  
The Persian Gulf is a region. Iraq is in the region but is not the entire region. Having troops on ships or neighboring countries is not the same as having them in Iraq.

So now you're saying Clinton sent MORE than 15,000 into the country of Iraq or are you trying to stretch that position by saying he had all those troops on ships nearby and that is the same thing as an invasion?

I think we have adequate surveillance from satellites to perform air strikes without units on the ground calling in air strikes but hey, I still want to know where that 15,000 number came from that you cited originally or don't you want to admit that you were fooled by an Onion article? Don't feel bad it wouldn't be the first time someone was fooled. They do a great job.

Guest


Guest

I remember clinton sending 4-5 thousand into kuwait as well... Saddam kept thumbing his nose at the inspections and staging troops near their border. He would probably still be in power today had he complied with the UN terms to which he agreed.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

PkrBum wrote:I remember clinton sending 4-5 thousand into kuwait as well... Saddam kept thumbing his nose at the inspections and staging troops near their border. He would probably still be in power today had he complied with the UN terms to which he agreed.
I liked your first sentence except for the 'as well' part. LOL

Saddam did a lot of saber rattling that's for sure.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

othershoe1030 wrote:
Bob wrote:This is all so surreal.  When  the republicans thought the iraq occupation was a great thing,  they gave Bush all the credit for it.
But now that they see what a bunch of crap it was,  they give Clinton the credit for it.  lol

You just can't make this shit up.
You got that right!

Don't include me in your scenario. As far as Iraq and WMD I have always stated Clinton and Albright's position.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Sal wrote:That's a very interesting post that I have no interest in reading, Markie.

Can you please condense it down to Democrats voicing their support for a full-bore invasion and eight year occupation?

Thanks.
We have seen that same cut-and-paste from Markle at least 50 times dating back to when he first started posting on the PNJ Forum several years ago. I guess he thinks that repetition of the same BS over and over again makes it the truth.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

PkrBum wrote:I remember clinton sending 4-5 thousand into kuwait as well... Saddam kept thumbing his nose at the inspections and staging troops near their border. He would probably still be in power today had he complied with the UN terms to which he agreed.
The Bushistas were itching for the smallest excuse to depose Saddam. They (the neocons) wrote about it in their 2000 White Paper, before they ever came to power. This was the same paper where they openly opined about a direct attack on the United States (the socalled "New Pearl Harbor), which would be used to justify the excuse for their invasion of Iraq.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

othershoe1030 wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:So, how many troops did Clinton send into Iraq, I forget?
Over 15,000.






President Clinton deployed more than 15,000 very special U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf region.
The phrase "very special forces" was a tip off Joani. I think it is just possible that you are referring to this article?…by the ONION, LOL. The short transport plane! Too funny!!!!! Read the whole article. It is hilarious.

Clinton Deploys Very Special Forces To Iraq
NEWS • Politics • Middle East • Disabilities • Clinton Administration • ISSUE 35•02 • Jan 20, 1999
Facebook1.2K
Twitter47
Google Plus7
WASHINGTON, DC—Preparing for another possible showdown with Iraq, President Clinton deployed more than 15,000 very special U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf region Tuesday.


Sgt. Tommy Dolber, who loves baseball and rollerskating, leads a group of very special forces in maneuvers near the Iraq-Kuwait border.

Clinton said the objective of the mission, dubbed Operation Great Job!, is twofold: to keep pressure on Saddam Hussein to permit the return of U.N. weapons inspectors, and to provide America's very special forces with a positive, rewarding, esteem-building experience.

"With Operation Great Job!, we send the message loud and clear to Saddam Hussein that his open defiance of the United Nations and international law will not be tolerated," Clinton said. "We also send the equally important message to our own troops that what's important is not whether you defeat the enemy, but that you try your best and have fun."

Added Clinton: "Hooray, U.S. troops!"


http://www.theonion.com/articles/clinton-deploys-very-special-forces-to-iraq,645/
http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=41766

Do you really think we conducted precision air strikes, including the tomahawk missile, in Iraq without special forces on the ground?
[color:59c3=#3366cc]I think air strikes are air strikes. And just for entertainment I'll ask why we'd send even special troops into an area that we were bombing? Doesn't make sense. Maybe in 50 years or when someone leaks secret information we'll learn that there were 25 special forces troops on the ground during the air strikes but until then I'll just stick with "no troops on the ground".

BTW where did you get that imaginary 15,000 number? Are you saying he sent in 15,000 troops and we just don't know about it?
I said, Clinton sent MORE than 15,000 troops. They were deployed to the Persian Gulf.

You are absolutely correct regarding your military stategy question....... And just for entertainment I'll ask why we'd send even special troops into an area that we were bombing?.

Air strikes are never ever ever conducted with troops on the ground. Rolling Eyes  The US never ever ever has intelligence teams gathering information in order to carry out precision air strikes........They just guess where the targets are.  
The Persian Gulf is a region. Iraq is in the region but is not the entire region. Having troops on ships or neighboring countries is not the same as having them in Iraq.

So now you're saying Clinton sent MORE than 15,000 into the country of Iraq or are you trying to stretch that position by saying he had all those troops on ships nearby and that is the same thing as an invasion?

I think we have adequate surveillance from satellites to perform air strikes without units on the ground calling in air strikes but hey, I still want to know where that 15,000 number came from that you cited originally or don't you want to admit that you were fooled by an Onion article? Don't feel bad it wouldn't be the first time someone was fooled. They do a great job.
The Onion quoted over 15,000....the other source I gave you was from the DOD. They listed over 23,000 being deployed.

http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=41766


I appreciate you letting me know the difference between the Persian Gulf region and the country of Iraq.


Are you dening special intel troops were on the ground, in Iraq? If so, can you provide a link to prove your statement, unless of course you are just making an assumption?

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

othershoe1030 wrote:
Sal wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:China and Russia both kill millions of their citizens and we do NADA...Saddam gets framed for gassing a couple hundred Kurds and we go..OH HELL NO..this means war....it's all showtime and we are idiots for going along with it.

If that's the reason, we sure waited long enough.

The Kurds were gassed by Saddam in 1988.

We invaded Iraq in 2003.
Facts again, dang. It would be funny if it weren't so awful.
Here ya go ..guess it was too much trouble to read the reasons for invasion..

Iraq War Resolution
President George Bush, surrounded by leaders of the House and Senate, announces the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, October 2, 2002.

The October, 2002, U.S. congress Iraq War Resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

   Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
   Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
   Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
   Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
   Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
   Members of Al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
   Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
   Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
   The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
   The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
   The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
   Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the U.N. Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Actually Saddam probably didn't gas the Kurds . He wasn't known to have Cyanide gas. It was more likely the Iranians that killed the Kurds and of course Saddams troops were not throwing babies out of incubators either but way let those "facts" get in the way of a fun war....

Markle

Markle

Sal wrote:
Markle wrote:Who lied then?


"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
- President Clinton in 1998


[…], when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.”

- President Clinton , Jan. 27, 1998 – State of the Union

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

“Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”

“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”


- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998


"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
-
Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."
- Madeline Albright, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State


"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain 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 "

Update: September 8, 2005
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them.
.

[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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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
.



"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 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 but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
- 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
.

"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
.

"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
.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
- John Edwards, 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"  (Currently President Barack Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State)

I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003


 

"Saddam is gone and good riddance," former President Bill Clinton said yesterday, but he urged President Bush to resist trying to get even with nations that opposed the war.



"There are German and French soldiers in Afghanistan today. Does the President want them to come home?" Clinton said at a Manhattan forum on corporate integrity.



He praised Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for their handling of the war, but said Bush should have waited longer before attacking for the "chance that either [Saddam Hussein] would have disarmed or . . . we would have had far more members of the Security Council with us."



Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found.



"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.

-  Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."


- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010

How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going?  How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President?  Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,000 American fatalities.  Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.


And now the Obama administration wants to TAKE CREDIT for the Iraq war…whew….


That's a very interesting post that I have no interest in reading, Markie.

Can you please condense it down to Democrats voicing their support for a full-bore invasion and eight year occupation?

That is not a surprise. Most Progressives have no interest in the facts. It is also no surprise that you prefer not to see who and what they said about Saddam Hussein.

Studies have shown that Progressives are far less likely to view, much less read views other than their own. In other words, to Progressives, IGNORANCE IS BLISS!



Thanks.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 4]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum