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 2 of 4]

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

[quote="Joanimaroni"]
Markle wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:The Bush neo-cons lied us into the damn war, there is no doubt about that. The problem now is there is no good solution only bad and worse choices.

The bottom line is the cultural mindset of the people in Afghanistan. If they wanted to fight the taliban and al qaeda they could. They just don't have the will to do it. They were once declared to be fierce and determined fighters back when they wanted the Russians out. Now they've turned into pot smoking slackers? You've seen the reports from our military guys who are training these locals?

So, which advice do you go with? Like, don't throw good money [lives] after bad or do you go with the 'cut your losses' point of view? I think we've determined many times on this forum that it wouldn't matter if we stayed five more minutes or 50 more years, the outcome would be the same and that is civil war.

When the original idea was to go into Afghanistan to deny Al qaeda a base of operations I thought that was a supremely poor reason given the none national form the group takes and the fact that they have many other basically lawless areas to gather in.
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."


[color=#000000][b]- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010

That's all true. Just exactly like it's also true that most republicans were saying exactly the same things.

Which of course is why I have no use for either. But whenever I say that, I'm told "you need to stop riding the fence and pick one or the other".
If I go to McDonalds and the only thing on the menu is a shit sandwich and a booger burger, I'm not inclined to want either. And if somebody tells me I need to eat one or the other, that person can shove the shit sandwich and the booger burger up his or her ass.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Markle wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:The Bush neo-cons lied us into the damn war, there is no doubt about that. The problem now is there is no good solution only bad and worse choices.

The bottom line is the cultural mindset of the people in Afghanistan. If they wanted to fight the taliban and al qaeda they could. They just don't have the will to do it. They were once declared to be fierce and determined fighters back when they wanted the Russians out. Now they've turned into pot smoking slackers? You've seen the reports from our military guys who are training these locals?

So, which advice do you go with? Like, don't throw good money [lives] after bad or do you go with the 'cut your losses' point of view? I think we've determined many times on this forum that it wouldn't matter if we stayed five more minutes or 50 more years, the outcome would be the same and that is civil war.

When the original idea was to go into Afghanistan to deny Al qaeda a base of operations I thought that was a supremely poor reason given the none national form the group takes and the fact that they have many other basically lawless areas to gather in.
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….
Simple answer. They were all wrong, and so are you!

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

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Markle wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:The Bush neo-cons lied us into the damn war, there is no doubt about that. The problem now is there is no good solution only bad and worse choices.

The bottom line is the cultural mindset of the people in Afghanistan. If they wanted to fight the taliban and al qaeda they could. They just don't have the will to do it. They were once declared to be fierce and determined fighters back when they wanted the Russians out. Now they've turned into pot smoking slackers? You've seen the reports from our military guys who are training these locals?

So, which advice do you go with? Like, don't throw good money [lives] after bad or do you go with the 'cut your losses' point of view? I think we've determined many times on this forum that it wouldn't matter if we stayed five more minutes or 50 more years, the outcome would be the same and that is civil war.

When the original idea was to go into Afghanistan to deny Al qaeda a base of operations I thought that was a supremely poor reason given the none national form the group takes and the fact that they have many other basically lawless areas to gather in.
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….
Simple answer. They were all wrong, and so are you!

But you are right? LOL.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

So, how many troops did Clinton send into Iraq, I forget?

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

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.

Guest


Guest

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.
cheers 

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Fuck Clinton and the wife and mistress he rode in on.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Bob wrote:Fuck Clinton and the wife and mistress he rode in on.  
I think that should be plural.

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:Fuck Clinton and the wife and mistress he rode in on.  
Easy for you to say LOL

Guest


Guest

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?

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:Among the many lies we've received from President Obama and his administration, is the one we got last year when the president declared that ALL our troops would be out of Afghanistan by 2014.

Today, it appears, Kerry has cemented a deal with Karzai for our troops to remain in Afghanistan for eleven more years.

That's eleven more years of wasting American lives and money to that Amerika's MIC continues its profit taking.

And we continue to pay the costs of disabled and homeless vets and PTSD sufferers.  And the costs to maintain our presence in Afghanistan are deducted from us investing in infrastructure repair, creating jobs, medical research, seniors, education, etc.  

Wanna do something about it?  Tell Boeing and Northrup Grumman to go fuck themselves!!

Screw Washington DC and Screw Amerika Inc!!
Works for me and bodes well for a contracting job upon retirement from the military. With my background, experience, clearance and such, I should be able to get six figures and draw my two retirements on top of that.
Transitioning from Airman to mercenary?

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

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?
Clinton did air strikes in Iraq but I can't find evidence that he sent in troops. Where did you get the 15,000 number?

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

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

I find no such number.

The United States launched a second missile strike against Iraq's southern air defenses tonight, just hours after President Clinton vowed that he would make President Saddam Hussein ''pay a price'' for sending his troops into the Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq.

Three Navy ships and a submarine in the Persian Gulf launched 17 cruise missiles less than a day after the first American attack, in which 27 cruise missiles were fired against Iraqi military targets.

Officials described the new attack as a ''mop-up operation'' intended to eliminate air-defense sites not destroyed in the earlier mission and to underscore the message to Mr. Hussein that he must end his military action.

In other moves to punish the Iraqi leader, Mr. Clinton today ordered a 60-mile extension of the area in southern Iraq where the United States and its allies banned the use of Iraqi aircraft after the 1991 war. As of Wednesday the zone will stretch from the Kuwaiti border north to the outskirts of Baghdad. And Administration officials said the agreement to let Iraq export oil to raise money for food and medical supplies was now ''frozen.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/04/world/us-launches-further-strike-against-iraq-after-clinton-vows-he-will-extract-price.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm



President Clinton deployed more than 15,000 very special U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf region.

Guest


Guest

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

I find no such number.

The United States launched a second missile strike against Iraq's southern air defenses tonight, just hours after President Clinton vowed that he would make President Saddam Hussein ''pay a price'' for sending his troops into the Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq.

Three Navy ships and a submarine in the Persian Gulf launched 17 cruise missiles less than a day after the first American attack, in which 27 cruise missiles were fired against Iraqi military targets.

Officials described the new attack as a ''mop-up operation'' intended to eliminate air-defense sites not destroyed in the earlier mission and to underscore the message to Mr. Hussein that he must end his military action.

In other moves to punish the Iraqi leader, Mr. Clinton today ordered a 60-mile extension of the area in southern Iraq where the United States and its allies banned the use of Iraqi aircraft after the 1991 war. As of Wednesday the zone will stretch from the Kuwaiti border north to the outskirts of Baghdad. And Administration officials said the agreement to let Iraq export oil to raise money for food and medical supplies was now ''frozen.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/04/world/us-launches-further-strike-against-iraq-after-clinton-vows-he-will-extract-price.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm



President Clinton deployed more than 15,000 very special U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf region.
you know I don't really know, but I just learned something INTERESTING.

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

well well, how could this have been over looked all these years. poor old bush was just doing what Clinton had ordered.

Guest


Guest

you know I don't really know, but I just learned something INTERESTING.

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

well well, how could this have been over looked all these years. poor old bush was just doing what Clinton had ordered.

Ill be leaving you all to chew on this a bit.

good night

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

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/

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Chrissy wrote:you know I don't really know, but I just learned something INTERESTING.

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

well well, how could this have been over looked all these years. poor old bush was just doing what Clinton had ordered.

Ill be leaving you all to chew on this a bit.

good night
I said troops, not air strikes. No such thing as 15,00 troops. You guys are just wrong on this. Wish on though.

Guest


Guest

othershoe1030 wrote:
Chrissy wrote:you know I don't really know, but I just learned something INTERESTING.

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

well well, how could this have been over looked all these years. poor old bush was just doing what Clinton had ordered.

Ill be leaving you all to chew on this a bit.

good night
I said troops, not air strikes. No such thing as 15,00 troops. You guys are just wrong on this. Wish on though.
personally I don't care about that now. bush sending in troops was just bush obeying Clinton. I find that unusual. this revelation is interesting to say the least. but I suppose all will over look it.

bush was carrying out Clintons passed law.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

There's no doubt about it.  It was William Jefferson Clinton who started the Iraq war.  Not George Walker Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney.  All they did was carry out Clinton's orders.
The liberal progressive media has lied about this from the beginning and deceived the American public.

Sal

Sal

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?

Thanks.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Oh come on,  Sal.  merkel and chrissy have done their homework on this and it's now obvious that Clinton started the Iraq War and Obama kept it going.
Bush and Cheney were just caught in the middle and had no choice but to go along with it.

The thing that angers me most is how fox news and talk radio has never reported this either.  Which is the proof that fox news and talk radio are just as liberal as the rest.

Guest


Guest

Don't pretend anything would matter or change the revised narrative. Bush lied... people died. Cue the body count.

Guest


Guest



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

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

The worst of it is how liberals like limbaugh and hannity have covered this up. They've been lying through their teeth telling us what a good thing it was that Bush started the war. When Bush didn't really have any choice in the matter.

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:The worst of it is how liberals like limbaugh and hannity have covered this up.  They've been lying through their teeth telling us what a good thing it was that Bush started the war.  When Bush didn't really have any choice in the matter.
maybe they just arnt smart enough to look at wiki LOL

I mean it IS the LAW and they DID USE this LAW to confirm going into Iraq. these are the FACTS.

or maybe they just didn't want people to know bush was following Clintons orders. Wink 

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 4]

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

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