Saddam Hussein 'clearly' had WMD

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Too bad sigs are limited to 255 characters. The above should be in every real true American's sigs.

Along with the quotes that Pabster provided...does lying about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein only count when they come from Bush? Last I checked, without Congressional support, a President can only go so far in deploying military forces...Congress was cheerleading right along side Bush, Democrats and Republicans...until things went to hell, and the Democrats smelled politican opportunism on the playing field.

Because they believed Dub's lies. They were stupid, not dishonest.


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.

That and it has also been shown that Bush and co. held back info that would have shpwn there was no clear tie to Iraq and WMD/9-11. But I guess pab's and the others forget that all those quotes he came up with were based on what the WH was releasing.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Too bad sigs are limited to 255 characters.

The above should be in every real true American's sigs.

As should these:

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

Rest of the BS snipped

Huge difference between "air and missile strikes" Vs ground invasion.

Thank God you will never be Traitor in Chief.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

If our intelligence was that poor, why did we invade them?

Notice none of the righties will answer you.

Because Bill, Hillary, and even Al "Gulfstream" Gore said he had 'em.

With absolutely solid references like that, how could we *not* invade ...

They wouldn't lie to us, would they?

Sheesh ...

why did the presence of wmd justify an invasion?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Huge difference between "air and missile strikes" Vs ground invasion.

Thank God you will never be Traitor in Chief.

You'll never quit making excuses for your heroes...will ya?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Huge difference between "air and missile strikes" Vs ground invasion.

Thank God you will never be Traitor in Chief.

You'll never quit making excuses for your heroes...will ya?

Please continue defending the indefensible.

More and more of your *safe* republican senate and house seats will be opening in 2008 to candidates who find the tactics of your republican party reprehensible and loathsome.

Thank you, Mr. Pabster!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Thank you, Mr. Pabster!

I'll mark this one for November 2008. Thanks! :laugh:

 

[Starbuck1975]

It counts more when the liar is the TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his gang of murderers. It counts more when his lies are the direct cause of the deaths of 3,809 American troops (as of 10/5/07 11:25 am EDT), the wounding of tens of thousands more American troops and squandering TRILLIONS of dollars of American treasure.

To be fair, it does count more when the CIC marches the nation to war, but I still don't think it is a question of lying...Bush is one of these idealist leaders who perceives himself as strong and decisive...is it a lie when you firmly believe in your own rhetoric?

Because they believed Dub's lies. They were stupid, not dishonest.

That and it has also been shown that Bush and co. held back info that would have shpwn there was no clear tie to Iraq and WMD/9-11. But I guess pab's and the others forget that all those quotes he came up with were based on what the WH was releasing.

I don't buy the argument that those who supported the war did so based on Bush's alleged lies. Members of Congress have access to many forms of intelligence, and command oversight of the Pentagon, and our intelligence community...one step further, many Democrats and Republicans with ties to the Clinton Administration certainly had access to Clinton's advisors, and their estimates of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein...not to mention that Congress certainly had the authority to bring in the UN inspection teams and obtain their perspective as well.

Yes, our march to war in Iraq was based on stupidity, but not because of lies...it was because our elected officials lacked the courage to question or prevent the arrogance of a popular wartime President.

 

[Jhhnn]

The sad truth is that the invasion wasn't based on any new intelligence, at all, but rather on a rehash of intelligence from the clinton era. Prior to 9/11, there was little support for the stated neocon desire to invade iraq. Only the conflation of 9/11 and Iraq allowed for it. Prior to the reinterpretation of intelligence and the agitprop campaign based on the whole "9/11 changed everything!", the invasion simply couldn't have happened.

Nor would the war resolution have passed w/o that masterful campaign of deception, culminating in the request for it virtually on the eve of an election where Dems were facing mass slaughter anyway.

Pabster's most recent comments are extremely disingenuous, attempting to place the blame for actions of the perpetrators onto those who didn't stop them... Where's this whole rightwing concept of "personal responsibility" now, when it would clearly point out that such responsibilty lies with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice and a host of others who sought, supported and made the decision to invade?

They're not responsible for their own actions?

Hogwash. And shame on ya for even making such a lame attempt at obfuscation.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
To be fair, it does count more when the CIC marches the nation to war, but I still don't think it is a question of lying...Bush is one of these idealist leaders who perceives himself as strong and decisive...is it a lie when you firmly believe in your own rhetoric?
.
.
I don't buy the argument that those who supported the war did so based on Bush's alleged lies. Members of Congress have access to many forms of intelligence, and command oversight of the Pentagon, and our intelligence community.

Their words are lies when they continue to parrot the same words after they're directly contradicted by observable facts and despite input to the contrary from competent sources who are responsible for knowing about such matters.

As of 10/5/07 4:16 pm EDT, 3,812 American troops have died for their lies, and tens of thousands more are wounded, scarred and disabled for life as a direct result of their LIES.

The Bushwhackos are directly responsible fo those deaths and injuries. There is simply no excuse for it. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

With such horrific and destructive consequenses, why should we allow Bush to "believe in his own rhetoric," let alone continue to act on it? :shocked:

 

[Elias824]

you know why America knew Iraq had WMDs, because we still had the receipts