President Obama's RED LINE in SYRIA has been crossed...

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02

An ACA Special Report

In April 1991, as part of the permanent cease-fire agreement ending the Persian Gulf War, the UN Security Council ordered Iraq to eliminate under international supervision its biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs, as well as its ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150 kilometers. The Security Council declared that the comprehensive economic sanctions imposed in 1990 on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait would remain in place until Baghdad had fully complied with its weapons requirements.

Baghdad agreed to these conditions but for eight years deceived, obstructed, and threatened international inspectors sent to dismantle and verify the destruction of its banned programs. This systematic Iraqi effort to conceal and obscure the true extent of its weapons of mass destruction programs began almost immediately, when Baghdad lied about the status of its programs in its initial declarations and obstructed an inspection team. Iraq continued to harass, hinder, and frustrate inspectors until late 1998, when the inspectors withdrew from Iraq just hours before the United States and the United Kingdom launched three days of military strikes against Iraq for its noncooperation. Since that time, Iraq has permitted only limited inspections of declared nuclear sites but has not yet allowed the return of intrusive inspections to verify that it has lived up to its commitment to get rid of its prohibited weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs.

The inspectors’ job was hampered not only by Iraq but also by key countries on the Security Council whose support for the inspections waned. As time passed, the combination of unending confrontations between weapons inspectors and Iraqi officials; the reported growing humanitarian toll of sanctions on Iraqi civilians; and the economic costs of forgoing exports, imports, and energy deals with a former trading partner, undermined the willingness of China, France, Russia, and others from enforcing the inspections and sanctions regimes against Iraq. Quarrels erupted between these countries, which were sympathetic to Iraq and claimed that it had sufficiently disarmed, and the United States and the United Kingdom, both of which repeatedly contended Baghdad had not fulfilled the obligations laid out in the cease-fire agreement.

Shortly after leaving Iraq in 1998, weapons inspectors of the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM), which was tasked with overseeing the destruction of Iraq’s chemical, biological, and missile programs, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), responsible for uncovering and dismantling the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, described their work as unfinished. The IAEA made much more progress than UNSCOM, but both sets of inspectors left Iraq with unanswered questions about Baghdad’s proscribed weapons.

UNSCOM reported numerous discrepancies, particularly with regard to biological weapons, between what Iraq claimed it had and evidence discovered by weapons inspectors. For four years, Baghdad denied the very existence of its biological weapons program. When Iraq finally did acknowledge having such a program, UNSCOM officials judged its declarations so insufficient—an assessment shared by independent experts—that the UN team claimed it could not even form a baseline by which to measure its progress in revealing and abolishing Iraq’s germ warfare program. More headway was made in the chemical weapons and missile areas, but by 1998 UNSCOM contended that key issues remained unresolved. For example, Iraq had failed to account for thousands of chemical warheads that it claimed, without any proof, to have used, lost, or unilaterally destroyed.

Iraq also sought to mislead the IAEA, but IAEA inspectors were largely successful in obtaining a relatively complete picture of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program and dismantling it. The IAEA, which removed from Iraq all known fissile material that could be used to make weapons, reported in February 1999 that there were no indications that meaningful amounts of weapon-usable material remained in the country or that it possessed the physical capability to produce significant amounts of such material indigenously. But the IAEA cautioned that because nuclear weapons material or infrastructure could be hidden, it could not verify with absolute certainty that Iraq had no prohibited materials.

A UN panel of experts tasked in 1999 with reporting on the results of the UNSCOM and IAEA efforts concluded that “the bulk of Iraq’s proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated,” but the experts emphasized that important issues remained unresolved. They further warned that, if weapons inspectors were kept outside Iraq, the risk that Iraq might reconstitute its programs would grow, and the initial assessments from which inspectors had been working would be jeopardized. The experts said the status quo was unacceptable, and they called for re-establishing an inspection regime in Iraq that was “effective, rigorous and credible.”

Perhaps our respective points of view are due solely to our current positions/opinions as to the merits of invading Iraq in the first place?
Bush's line in the sand was Eleven days later, the United States delivered an ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to surrender power. On March 19, 2003, U.S. and U.K. military forces invaded Iraq. The “shock and awe” military campaign that followed was short, but the subsequent occupation was long and bloody. That is from the 2013 article that I posted. It is my opinion that Bush was determined to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam and requested our intelligence services to by-god get him the intel he needed to justify it. That only worked to a certain extent so when the reports were weak he drew a line no sane person would expect the head of a sovereign state to comply with, namely to resign from power, Bush declared his "reason" for the invasion and the rest is history.

Let's not forget that no stockpiles of WMD were ever found. The fact that Bill and Hillary thought there were some there is all the more worrying as it shows how much influence the powers that be have on both parties.

The whole war on terrorism, all the surveillance we are now under, military spending on weapons systems, cyber-war and manipulation is all enough to keep a normal person awake at night. It is a creepy world on several levels.

Neocons like PaceDog live it; love it....

Who would be their boogeyman were it not for Al Qaida?

PkrBum wrote:
I'm frankly not very interested in the topic... I just bristle when revised history is used when we all here remember.

Y'all really should let a little more time go by.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

...and nothing will be done about it.

Oh now you want to invade Syria? Are you that much of a war monger? When will neocons stop pushing for war everywhere?

I'm not the one drawing lines in the sand and daring Assad to cross them. When Bush drew a line in the sand, it got backed up. You've said it here yourself that you believe American should do something about the WMDs that Syria has stockpiled.

Bush "drew a line in the sand"? Put down the crack pipe. Bush invaded a country without provocation and planned it well in advance of the event that supposedly triggered it.

Part of the reason Iraq was invaded was that Sadaam (may he continue to rot) used chemical weapons on his own people...That was an unacceptable reason by some then against the Bush Admin and now.....If it was warmongering then isn't it now too?....Conspiracy nuts called the Bush administration for using false information are they now worried that history may be repeating itself?...Where's the UN (that we freakin pay so much for) on this situation?...Let them put on their little blue helmets and solve this mess...

Hardly a good enough reason to sacrifice 5K U.S. soldiers and $1 trillion of the taxpayers' money (every penny of it borrowed) to invade that country.....

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02

An ACA Special Report

In April 1991, as part of the permanent cease-fire agreement ending the Persian Gulf War, the UN Security Council ordered Iraq to eliminate under international supervision its biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs, as well as its ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150 kilometers. The Security Council declared that the comprehensive economic sanctions imposed in 1990 on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait would remain in place until Baghdad had fully complied with its weapons requirements.

Baghdad agreed to these conditions but for eight years deceived, obstructed, and threatened international inspectors sent to dismantle and verify the destruction of its banned programs. This systematic Iraqi effort to conceal and obscure the true extent of its weapons of mass destruction programs began almost immediately, when Baghdad lied about the status of its programs in its initial declarations and obstructed an inspection team. Iraq continued to harass, hinder, and frustrate inspectors until late 1998, when the inspectors withdrew from Iraq just hours before the United States and the United Kingdom launched three days of military strikes against Iraq for its noncooperation. Since that time, Iraq has permitted only limited inspections of declared nuclear sites but has not yet allowed the return of intrusive inspections to verify that it has lived up to its commitment to get rid of its prohibited weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs.

The inspectors’ job was hampered not only by Iraq but also by key countries on the Security Council whose support for the inspections waned. As time passed, the combination of unending confrontations between weapons inspectors and Iraqi officials; the reported growing humanitarian toll of sanctions on Iraqi civilians; and the economic costs of forgoing exports, imports, and energy deals with a former trading partner, undermined the willingness of China, France, Russia, and others from enforcing the inspections and sanctions regimes against Iraq. Quarrels erupted between these countries, which were sympathetic to Iraq and claimed that it had sufficiently disarmed, and the United States and the United Kingdom, both of which repeatedly contended Baghdad had not fulfilled the obligations laid out in the cease-fire agreement.

Shortly after leaving Iraq in 1998, weapons inspectors of the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM), which was tasked with overseeing the destruction of Iraq’s chemical, biological, and missile programs, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), responsible for uncovering and dismantling the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, described their work as unfinished. The IAEA made much more progress than UNSCOM, but both sets of inspectors left Iraq with unanswered questions about Baghdad’s proscribed weapons.

UNSCOM reported numerous discrepancies, particularly with regard to biological weapons, between what Iraq claimed it had and evidence discovered by weapons inspectors. For four years, Baghdad denied the very existence of its biological weapons program. When Iraq finally did acknowledge having such a program, UNSCOM officials judged its declarations so insufficient—an assessment shared by independent experts—that the UN team claimed it could not even form a baseline by which to measure its progress in revealing and abolishing Iraq’s germ warfare program. More headway was made in the chemical weapons and missile areas, but by 1998 UNSCOM contended that key issues remained unresolved. For example, Iraq had failed to account for thousands of chemical warheads that it claimed, without any proof, to have used, lost, or unilaterally destroyed.

Iraq also sought to mislead the IAEA, but IAEA inspectors were largely successful in obtaining a relatively complete picture of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program and dismantling it. The IAEA, which removed from Iraq all known fissile material that could be used to make weapons, reported in February 1999 that there were no indications that meaningful amounts of weapon-usable material remained in the country or that it possessed the physical capability to produce significant amounts of such material indigenously. But the IAEA cautioned that because nuclear weapons material or infrastructure could be hidden, it could not verify with absolute certainty that Iraq had no prohibited materials.

A UN panel of experts tasked in 1999 with reporting on the results of the UNSCOM and IAEA efforts concluded that “the bulk of Iraq’s proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated,” but the experts emphasized that important issues remained unresolved. They further warned that, if weapons inspectors were kept outside Iraq, the risk that Iraq might reconstitute its programs would grow, and the initial assessments from which inspectors had been working would be jeopardized. The experts said the status quo was unacceptable, and they called for re-establishing an inspection regime in Iraq that was “effective, rigorous and credible.”

Perhaps our respective points of view are due solely to our current positions/opinions as to the merits of invading Iraq in the first place?
Bush's line in the sand was Eleven days later, the United States delivered an ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to surrender power. On March 19, 2003, U.S. and U.K. military forces invaded Iraq. The “shock and awe” military campaign that followed was short, but the subsequent occupation was long and bloody. That is from the 2013 article that I posted. It is my opinion that Bush was determined to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam and requested our intelligence services to by-god get him the intel he needed to justify it. That only worked to a certain extent so when the reports were weak he drew a line no sane person would expect the head of a sovereign state to comply with, namely to resign from power, Bush declared his "reason" for the invasion and the rest is history.

Let's not forget that no stockpiles of WMD were ever found. The fact that Bill and Hillary thought there were some there is all the more worrying as it shows how much influence the powers that be have on both parties.

The whole war on terrorism, all the surveillance we are now under, military spending on weapons systems, cyber-war and manipulation is all enough to keep a normal person awake at night. It is a creepy world on several levels.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

...and nothing will be done about it.

Oh now you want to invade Syria? Are you that much of a war monger? When will neocons stop pushing for war everywhere?

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

NaNook wrote:Bill and Hillary Clinton and most Democrats said they had WMDs. What's the problem? Read the history.......and votes in Congress.

I am sure it is all spun that way in the Bush Presidential LIEbury.

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02

An ACA Special Report

In April 1991, as part of the permanent cease-fire agreement ending the Persian Gulf War, the UN Security Council ordered Iraq to eliminate under international supervision its biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs, as well as its ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150 kilometers. The Security Council declared that the comprehensive economic sanctions imposed in 1990 on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait would remain in place until Baghdad had fully complied with its weapons requirements.

Baghdad agreed to these conditions but for eight years deceived, obstructed, and threatened international inspectors sent to dismantle and verify the destruction of its banned programs. This systematic Iraqi effort to conceal and obscure the true extent of its weapons of mass destruction programs began almost immediately, when Baghdad lied about the status of its programs in its initial declarations and obstructed an inspection team. Iraq continued to harass, hinder, and frustrate inspectors until late 1998, when the inspectors withdrew from Iraq just hours before the United States and the United Kingdom launched three days of military strikes against Iraq for its noncooperation. Since that time, Iraq has permitted only limited inspections of declared nuclear sites but has not yet allowed the return of intrusive inspections to verify that it has lived up to its commitment to get rid of its prohibited weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs.

The inspectors’ job was hampered not only by Iraq but also by key countries on the Security Council whose support for the inspections waned. As time passed, the combination of unending confrontations between weapons inspectors and Iraqi officials; the reported growing humanitarian toll of sanctions on Iraqi civilians; and the economic costs of forgoing exports, imports, and energy deals with a former trading partner, undermined the willingness of China, France, Russia, and others from enforcing the inspections and sanctions regimes against Iraq. Quarrels erupted between these countries, which were sympathetic to Iraq and claimed that it had sufficiently disarmed, and the United States and the United Kingdom, both of which repeatedly contended Baghdad had not fulfilled the obligations laid out in the cease-fire agreement.

Shortly after leaving Iraq in 1998, weapons inspectors of the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM), which was tasked with overseeing the destruction of Iraq’s chemical, biological, and missile programs, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), responsible for uncovering and dismantling the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, described their work as unfinished. The IAEA made much more progress than UNSCOM, but both sets of inspectors left Iraq with unanswered questions about Baghdad’s proscribed weapons.

UNSCOM reported numerous discrepancies, particularly with regard to biological weapons, between what Iraq claimed it had and evidence discovered by weapons inspectors. For four years, Baghdad denied the very existence of its biological weapons program. When Iraq finally did acknowledge having such a program, UNSCOM officials judged its declarations so insufficient—an assessment shared by independent experts—that the UN team claimed it could not even form a baseline by which to measure its progress in revealing and abolishing Iraq’s germ warfare program. More headway was made in the chemical weapons and missile areas, but by 1998 UNSCOM contended that key issues remained unresolved. For example, Iraq had failed to account for thousands of chemical warheads that it claimed, without any proof, to have used, lost, or unilaterally destroyed.

Iraq also sought to mislead the IAEA, but IAEA inspectors were largely successful in obtaining a relatively complete picture of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program and dismantling it. The IAEA, which removed from Iraq all known fissile material that could be used to make weapons, reported in February 1999 that there were no indications that meaningful amounts of weapon-usable material remained in the country or that it possessed the physical capability to produce significant amounts of such material indigenously. But the IAEA cautioned that because nuclear weapons material or infrastructure could be hidden, it could not verify with absolute certainty that Iraq had no prohibited materials.

A UN panel of experts tasked in 1999 with reporting on the results of the UNSCOM and IAEA efforts concluded that “the bulk of Iraq’s proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated,” but the experts emphasized that important issues remained unresolved. They further warned that, if weapons inspectors were kept outside Iraq, the risk that Iraq might reconstitute its programs would grow, and the initial assessments from which inspectors had been working would be jeopardized. The experts said the status quo was unacceptable, and they called for re-establishing an inspection regime in Iraq that was “effective, rigorous and credible.”

Perhaps our respective points of view are due solely to our current positions/opinions as to the merits of invading Iraq in the first place?
Bush's line in the sand was Eleven days later, the United States delivered an ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to surrender power. On March 19, 2003, U.S. and U.K. military forces invaded Iraq. The “shock and awe” military campaign that followed was short, but the subsequent occupation was long and bloody. That is from the 2013 article that I posted. It is my opinion that Bush was determined to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam and requested our intelligence services to by-god get him the intel he needed to justify it. That only worked to a certain extent so when the reports were weak he drew a line no sane person would expect the head of a sovereign state to comply with, namely to resign from power, Bush declared his "reason" for the invasion and the rest is history.

Let's not forget that no stockpiles of WMD were ever found. The fact that Bill and Hillary thought there were some there is all the more worrying as it shows how much influence the powers that be have on both parties.

The whole war on terrorism, all the surveillance we are now under, military spending on weapons systems, cyber-war and manipulation is all enough to keep a normal person awake at night. It is a creepy world on several levels.

As you know, Saddam Hussein had two years to move and/or conceal his WMD's. That he had them is NOT a question. Also, the U.S. shipped 500 tonnes of yellow cake to Canada for safe storage.

Also, much as you'd like to trivialize what other Democrats knew Saddam Hussein Obama had WMD's here is the list for your reference. Maybe you should copy it to your computer and review it frequently since you seem to have a serious memory loss problem.

"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….

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:
I'm frankly not very interested in the topic... I just bristle when revised history is used when we all here remember.

Y'all really should let a little more time go by.

The line in the sand you are pointing to that Bush responded to was one manufactured to set up an excuse to invade Iraq. To me that is not anything to be admired or to hold up as a good example. It was a transparent excuse then and it still is today.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

...and nothing will be done about it.

Oh now you want to invade Syria? Are you that much of a war monger? When will neocons stop pushing for war everywhere?

I'm not the one drawing lines in the sand and daring Assad to cross them. When Bush drew a line in the sand, it got backed up. You've said it here yourself that you believe American should do something about the WMDs that Syria has stockpiled.

Current intel across the world believed they were the next catastrophe.

Bush "drew a line in the sand"? Put down the crack pipe. Bush invaded a country without provocation and planned it well in advance of the event that supposedly triggered it.

Part of the reason Iraq was invaded was that Sadaam (may he continue to rot) used chemical weapons on his own people...That was an unacceptable reason by some then against the Bush Admin and now.....If it was warmongering then isn't it now too?....Conspiracy nuts called the Bush administration for using false information are they now worried that history may be repeating itself?...Where's the UN (that we freakin pay so much for) on this situation?...Let them put on their little blue helmets and solve this mess...

Hardly a good enough reason to sacrifice 5K U.S. soldiers and $1 trillion of the taxpayers' money (every penny of it borrowed) to invade that country.....

I see... So now you're saying the United States should have stayed out of Germany in WWII where we wasted millions (billions?) of dollars (hate to think of what that would be in today's money) and sacrificed 416K US soldiers.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw

Your analogy is flawed. In the 1940s, Germany was a militant, technically advanced industrial power, which had invaded most of Europe, parts of Africa, and which had declared war against the U.S. Placing Iraq in the same threat category as Nazi Germany is laughable, if not just plain idiotic.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

...and nothing will be done about it.

Oh now you want to invade Syria? Are you that much of a war monger? When will neocons stop pushing for war everywhere?

I'm not the one drawing lines in the sand and daring Assad to cross them. When Bush drew a line in the sand, it got backed up. You've said it here yourself that you believe American should do something about the WMDs that Syria has stockpiled.

Current intel across the world believed they were the next catastrophe.

Bush "drew a line in the sand"? Put down the crack pipe. Bush invaded a country without provocation and planned it well in advance of the event that supposedly triggered it.

Part of the reason Iraq was invaded was that Sadaam (may he continue to rot) used chemical weapons on his own people...That was an unacceptable reason by some then against the Bush Admin and now.....If it was warmongering then isn't it now too?....Conspiracy nuts called the Bush administration for using false information are they now worried that history may be repeating itself?...Where's the UN (that we freakin pay so much for) on this situation?...Let them put on their little blue helmets and solve this mess...

Hardly a good enough reason to sacrifice 5K U.S. soldiers and $1 trillion of the taxpayers' money (every penny of it borrowed) to invade that country.....

I see... So now you're saying the United States should have stayed out of Germany in WWII where we wasted millions (billions?) of dollars (hate to think of what that would be in today's money) and sacrificed 416K US soldiers.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw

Your analogy is flawed. In the 1940s, Germany was a militant, technically advanced industrial power, which had invaded most of Europe, parts of Africa, and which had declared war against the U.S. Placing Iraq in the same threat category as Nazi Germany is laughable, if not just plain idiotic.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Who gives a flying "F" about your rationale for invading Iraq, MarKle? BTW, you had better save that cut-and-paste----we haven't seen it enough, you know......

The only positive thing coming out of invading Iraq has been that the country's oil production has fallen under the influence of Western energy companies, and is growing rapidly. Of course, this means $billions$ for the world's oligarchs, who tend to profit wildly from the warfare waged in this world.

PkrBum wrote:http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02


The only thing I'd want Obama to take credit for regarding the Iraq war would be that he got our troops out of there.

As to your reference to the yellowcake, that is BS:[/color]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Who gives a flying "F" about your rationale for invading Iraq, MarKle? BTW, you had better save that cut-and-paste----we haven't seen it enough, you know......

The only positive thing coming out of invading Iraq has been that the country's oil production has fallen under the influence of Western energy companies, and is growing rapidly. Of course, this means $billions$ for the world's oligarchs, who tend to profit wildly from the warfare waged in this world.

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02


The only thing I'd want Obama to take credit for regarding the Iraq war would be that he got our troops out of there.

As to your reference to the yellowcake, that is BS:[/color]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

As you know, President Barack Hussein Obama followed the same time schedule for getting our troops out of Iraq.

Yes, correct. So, how does this fact transform into your initial claim that Obama was now taking credit for the Iraq War? See, it makes no sense as usual.

You also need a better source for the yellowcake. Snopes, like many polls, phrase their question so they get the answer they want. Snopes question was:
Claim: the removal of yellowcake uranium from Iraq in 2008 proved that Saddam Hussein had been trying to restart Iraq’s nuclear program.

Of course it doesn't PROVE he was trying to re-start the program, Saddam Hussein said he was, all his leaders said they were and they would allow no inspections. They also had TWO YEARS to move and/or hide anything they wanted.

Snopes is a site that debunks chain emails that tend to spread rumors from the right wing nut jobs to make it seem as if some horrible thing has just happened or is afoot. They do not do polling so I don't know what you are talking about. The snopes article which is set up in such a way as to not allow copy and paste, darn it, points out that the yellowcake had nothing to do with reasons to invade the country and everything to do with the Bush administration manufacturing false information about Saddam's progress in building an atomic bomb.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

From NBC News

Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq

Last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canada

Associated Press
updated 7/5/2008 6:57:12 PM ET

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad — using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.

Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/

Markle wrote:By leading from behind, the well known method of President Barack Hussein Obama, there have now been 70,000 deaths. While wringing his hands, not knowing what to do and ultimately leading from behind the situation has gotten worse with fewer and fewer choices.

Now our enemies are chuckling and smiling as they watch the American President back away from the red line he drew and watch it turn to pink then disappear altogether.

Sal wrote:

Markle wrote:By leading from behind, the well known method of President Barack Hussein Obama, there have now been 70,000 deaths. While wringing his hands, not knowing what to do and ultimately leading from behind the situation has gotten worse with fewer and fewer choices.

Now our enemies are chuckling and smiling as they watch the American President back away from the red line he drew and watch it turn to pink then disappear altogether.

There are zero good options in Syria.

If the choice is between staying on the sidelines and trying to contain the fallout, as opposed to another ten year war, I'm all for taking a pass.

Obama continues to play this cautiously.

And considering the last occupant of the Oval Office, I'm extremely grateful he's dong so.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Sal wrote:

Markle wrote:By leading from behind, the well known method of President Barack Hussein Obama, there have now been 70,000 deaths. While wringing his hands, not knowing what to do and ultimately leading from behind the situation has gotten worse with fewer and fewer choices.

Now our enemies are chuckling and smiling as they watch the American President back away from the red line he drew and watch it turn to pink then disappear altogether.

There are zero good options in Syria.

If the choice is between staying on the sidelines and trying to contain the fallout, as opposed to another ten year war, I'm all for taking a pass.

Obama continues to play this cautiously.

And considering the last occupant of the Oval Office, I'm extremely grateful he's dong so.

Why do neocons like Markle and PaceDog thirst for war so much?

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Who gives a flying "F" about your rationale for invading Iraq, MarKle? BTW, you had better save that cut-and-paste----we haven't seen it enough, you know......

The only positive thing coming out of invading Iraq has been that the country's oil production has fallen under the influence of Western energy companies, and is growing rapidly. Of course, this means $billions$ for the world's oligarchs, who tend to profit wildly from the warfare waged in this world.

Gee...I'm so sorry that you hate to see the FACTS and TRUTH about what happened and I know what a crimp that puts in your revision of history.

I'm not surprised that you do not consider 29 million people being freed from a ruthless, barbaric dictator who killed more of his own citizens than were killed in the Iraq war. They actually can vote.

I also fully realize that you are DESPERATE to call attention AWAY from the boondoggle President Barack Hussein Obama has made of our foreign affairs and drastic increase in fatal Islamic Terrorist attacks on our soil.

He has led from behind in the Syrian blow up and laid down a "red line" if Syria used chemical weapons. Now they have and it appears that his "red line" was actually pink.

Do you think it adds anything to your "argument" by using profanity? Does that make you feel special or rough and tough?

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
― Socrates

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Why do neocons like Markle and PaceDog thirst for war so much?

Sal wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Why do neocons like Markle and PaceDog thirst for war so much?

I'll be damned if I know.

You would think that their chicken-hawkery would conflict with their deficit-hawkery, but wingnuts have the cognitive dissonance thing down to an art form.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
I'll be damned if I know.

You would think that their chicken-hawkery would conflict with their deficit-hawkery, but wingnuts have the cognitive dissonance thing down to an art form.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Sal wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Why do neocons like Markle and PaceDog thirst for war so much?

I'll be damned if I know.

You would think that their chicken-hawkery would conflict with their deficit-hawkery, but wingnuts have the cognitive dissonance thing down to an art form.

Chickenhawk? I have seven deployments in the Air Force since 2001 and three with the Marines back in the 1980s. I was in places you only read about on the internet goofy.