They lied and people died!

C

Canceled.LTroll.29

Banned
"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

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"
BJ Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berg(L)er, Feb 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John "Vietnam" Kerry, among others on October 9, 1998

"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." BJ Clinton in 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." Tom Daschle in 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." Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
 
What are you....12?

Conservatives who - though stupid - aren't nearly as stupid as you are have already posted this list of quotes (with others) approximately 700 times on this site alone, also unsuccessfully.

Know why? Not one of those Democrats is calling for the invasion & occupation of Iraq.

That's what the war criminal who you voted for did. And the blood is on his hands, and yours. If you felt good about that, you wouldn't feel the need to try desperately to "share the credit" with this list of quotes.

Sleep tight.
 
Onceler said:
(The usual namecalling and lies deleted)

Not one of those Democrats is calling for the invasion & occupation of Iraq.
Click to expand...

That's right. Every one of them thought that the "regime change" they had called for, and which the Clinton administration made its oficial policy, could be done perfectly well by standing around OUTSIDE the country and asking Saddam nicely if he would please step down.

Not one of them ever intended us to invade.

Got it?

:confused: :confused: :confused:
 
Little-Acorn said:
That's right. Every one of them thought that the "regime change" they had called for, and which the Clinton administration made its oficial policy, could be done perfectly well by standing around OUTSIDE the country and asking Saddam nicely if he would please step down.

Not one of them ever intended us to invade.

Got it?

:confused: :confused: :confused:
Click to expand...


Bush Sr. thought it was attainable without invasion. His timing might have been off, but as of 2001, both Rice & Powell were saying that Saddam was contained & not even a threat to his immediate neighbors.

Regardless, the rush to war will go down as one of the biggest blunders in U.S. foreign policy history. You voted for the guy who made the call; I didn't. Any one of the people listed in the 1st post on this thread would not have made that call, barring a direct threat to national security. Clinton made it his official policy? How close did he come to invading over the course of 8 years?

Face up to it. You always talk about how Clinton supporters from the '90's "finally get it." How long will it take you with Bush, dittohead? Think you'll make it there in this lifetime?
 
What lies?

They all claimed Saddam had WMD.

Now, every one of them says he didn't. Were they lying then, or now?

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated 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. 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 "Gaia" Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted "Backstroke" Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Robert "Kleagle" 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 "I Served in 'Nam" Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hildebeast Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime..He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John "Vietnam" Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"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 "Ambulance Chaser" Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

The Senate voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

The House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait.
 
Or could it be that events transpired in between those two claims, ensuring that I was telling the truth both times?

Could it fucking be?

OMG what a concept!
 
indisputable said:
So there were WMD in Iraq - until Jaunary 21, 2001.

Then, there weren't.

Is that about right?
Click to expand...

Fool, did you know that we had inspectors in Iraq during those years? And that while some people may have believed there were wmds in iraq, and that's why we had inspectors there, those inspectors never found any? And that's why none of those people tried to invade Iraq, on this belief? That some people wait for actual evidence? That some people understand their beliefs can be wrong? Did you know that some would say it's criminal to murder people on the basis of what you "think" might be happening? And that again, is why none of those above tried to invade Iraq?

Anything else fool? If not, here's a question for you. Any of your kids die for bush's "belief"? Or like every other chickenshit hawk on this board, are your kids home, and there is no way in hell they are dying in Iraq, that's a good job for Juan...hmm?

Where are your kids fool?
 
In March of 2003, Hans Blix reported to Congress that inspectors had unfettered access to all suspected sites in Iraq. Had they been allowed to continue, they would have found out what it took us (for now) 5 years, 4,000 lives, 30,000+ American casualties, 100,000+ innocent Iraqi dead, 4 million refugees and close to $1 trillion dollars, as well as our credibility around the globe, to find out: there were no WMD's, and Saddam was no threat to anyone.

Bush told us our options had run out, and that Saddam was out of time. That was a lie. He lied about Curveball & mobile bio-weapons labs. He lied about yellow cake & Saddam's nuclear capability. He cherrypicked the facts to fit the policy, which in itself is dishonest. He lied in 2006 when he said sectarian violence was at an ebb, which Petraeus' recent testimony exposed to little media fanfare, because people are so used to Bush lying & exaggerating at this point.

That is why Bush lied & people died. The people you list? They didn't lie, and no one died as a result.
 
So there never were any WMDs?

Then what were all those folks talking about? Why the the UN say there were?

Scott Ritter says he saw them. He also said he was far from happy with BJ Clinton's support for the inspections, or lack of it. In September 1998, he told Newsweek, "I heard somebody say it very effectively: '[Secretary of State] Madeleine Albright blocked more inspections in 1997 than Saddam Hussein did.' It's a funny quip, but unfortunately true."

Was Ritter a liar?

Why didn't Saddam prove to the world he didn't have them? He'd be alive and still in power now if he had.

Why did Saddam offer bribes to inspectors, unless he had something to hide?

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2004/me_iraq_06_11.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...am12.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/12/ixworld.html

http://www.bwpp.org/documents/20040720BarabaraUNinvestigations.pdf
 
indisputable said:
Then what were all those folks talking about? Why the the UN say there were?

Scott Ritter says he saw them. He also said he was far from happy with BJ Clinton's support for the inspections, or lack of it. In September 1998, he told Newsweek, "I heard somebody say it very effectively: '[Secretary of State] Madeleine Albright blocked more inspections in 1997 than Saddam Hussein did.' It's a funny quip, but unfortunately true."

Was Ritter a liar?

Why didn't Saddam prove to the world he didn't have them? He'd be alive and still in power now if he had.
Why did Saddam offer bribes to inspectors, unless he had something to hide?

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2004/me_iraq_06_11.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...am12.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/12/ixworld.html

http://www.bwpp.org/documents/20040720BarabaraUNinvestigations.pdf
Click to expand...

Why didn't Saddam prove he didn't have wmds? Are you fucking shitting me fool? You can't prove a negative. You can however, prove a positive. If he had them, that could be proved. It was not proved, because he didn't have them, and bush invaded anyway, with the support of fools like you, and you have the blood of hundreds of thousands on your hands. But not of your kids huh? They're home aren't they? Come on just say it. Your kids aren't dying in Iraq. Say it.

Here are the cold hard facts. Your "belief" was wrong. Bush's "belief" was wrong. And you didnt demand evidence from bush before slaughtering hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, because that would have required your removing his dick from your mouth.

And you'd rather support bush because he's a republican, at the cost of the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children. And for that, you should writhe in hell screaming for eternity. I think you're going to catch a break there; I don't think there is a hell. I think hell is here on earth, created for little children who are burned to death on dusty roads in Iraq, on your say-so.

But you know...you should suffer that fate. It's coming to you. And so it's a damned shame there is no such thing, and that you have your fat, souless ass parked in the most powerful country on earth, and so probably, probably, you'll never watch your children die screaming from burns in the streets on the say-so of some souless fuck just like you in China.

Probably.

The times you know, they are a changing. It's not the sure bet it once was.
 
Onceler said:
In March of 2003, Hans Blix reported to Congress that inspectors had unfettered access to all suspected sites in Iraq. Had they been allowed to continue, they would have found out what it took us (for now) 5 years, 4,000 lives, 30,000+ American casualties, 100,000+ innocent Iraqi dead, 4 million refugees and close to $1 trillion dollars, as well as our credibility around the globe, to find out: there were no WMD's, and Saddam was no threat to anyone.

Bush told us our options had run out, and that Saddam was out of time. That was a lie. He lied about Curveball & mobile bio-weapons labs. He lied about yellow cake & Saddam's nuclear capability. He cherrypicked the facts to fit the policy, which in itself is dishonest. He lied in 2006 when he said sectarian violence was at an ebb, which Petraeus' recent testimony exposed to little media fanfare, because people are so used to Bush lying & exaggerating at this point.

That is why Bush lied & people died. The people you list? They didn't lie, and no one died as a result.
Click to expand...

Trying to deny that democrats had anything to do with the build up to going to war with Iraq is absurd. They helped fan the flames that Bush used to get approval to invade. They even voted for it which Obama fans so clearly echo daily.
 
uscitizen said:
"Where are your kids fool?"

Thankfully he is likely not old enough to reproduce yet.
Click to expand...

If he's not, then he's young enough to be in Iraq.

Why the fuck are these clowns, or their offspring, still here posting on message boards?

We have troops on their fourth tour, they have been on ABC NEWS TELLING YOU, I WANT TO COME HOME, and these fucks remaini here, and their children remain here.

You support this war? Support the troops motherfucker and send your son to Iraq, today. Or, pack your bags and get there yourself. Today.
 
Darla said:
If he's not, then he's young enough to be in Iraq.

Why the fuck are these clowns, or their offspring, still here posting on message boards?

We have troops on their fourth tour, they have been on ABC NEWS TELLING YOU, I WANT TO COME HOME, and these fucks remaini here, and their children remain here.

You support this war? Support the troops motherfucker and send your son to Iraq, today. Or, pack your bags and get there yourself. Today.
Click to expand...

As if you posting here is doing anything to stop the war. Get off you ass and go stop it !!
 
Wasn't the whole point of the UN inspections supposed to be proof that Saddam was complying with the resolution to get rid of his WMD?

If he didn't have any, why did the inspectors say he did? Why did he resist?

Seems strange.
 
Yep they voted for it amid shouts of antiamericanism and such in a post 911 USA...
wusses all.
But the ones driving the move to war in Iraq were evil.
 
Dilloduck said:
Trying to deny that democrats had anything to do with the build up to going to war with Iraq is absurd. They helped fan the flames that Bush used to get approval to invade. They even voted for it which Obama fans so clearly echo daily.
Click to expand...

The Dems in Congress (some of them - not all) were enablers, but this is Bush's war, and always will be. Trying to assert otherwise is criminal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top