LIES ABOUT WMDs!!! We need to GET THESE GUYS! (more quotes)

[sperbonzo]

"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 F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"[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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

[Screaming]

So you think he didnt have WMD? You dont think he could have got rid of them?

[directfiesta]

So weak ....

Better to out a covert CIA operative in retribution for her husband saying the truth ....

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by Screaming

So you think he didnt have WMD? You dont think he could have got rid of them?

10.000 + post and you don't know where SPERBONZO stands....

[Phoenix]

dude...you got to know that they were follwoing the party at the time...even Kerry

Hell he would have been labeled a traitor if he hadnt.

That is the state of your country...no more free speech and dont y ou dare form an opinion that wasnt given to you

[Screaming]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

10.000 + post and you don't know where SPERBONZO stands....

Just asking a question.

[2HousePlague]

Looks pretty "disarmed" to me...




2hp

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

dude...you got to know that they were follwoing the party at the time...even Kerry

Hell he would have been labeled a traitor if he hadnt.

That is the state of your country...no more free speech and dont y ou dare form an opinion that wasnt given to you

Even in 1998???

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

10.000 + post and you don't know where SPERBONZO stands....

RIGHT? LMAO!


Nice to see you there Direct Fiesta!

Always fun to spar with you... You tend to not go straight to the personal insult level as much as others.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

dude...you got to know that they were follwoing the party at the time...even Kerry

Hell he would have been labeled a traitor if he hadnt.

That is the state of your country...no more free speech and dont y ou dare form an opinion that wasnt given to you

....it always cracks me up when people go on about how you can't be critical of the government and there is no freedom of speech, and then I go into a Barnes & Noble and there are huge displays of books and movies all saying that Bush is the Anti-Christ.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

RIGHT? LMAO!

You tend to not go straight to the personal insult level as much as others.

Everybody is entitled to their opinions ... and can be wrong ... doesn't make them idiots

On topic, the DEMS are barely a shadow of a political party... It is true that they do not really stand firm on any subject.
The Republicans, even if I think they are wrong, stand firm on their positions, even during crisis ... That is a plus for them.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Everybody is entitled to their opinions ... and can be wrong ... doesn't make them idiots

On topic, the DEMS are barely a shadow of a political party... It is true that they do not really stand firm on any subject.
The Republicans, even if I think they are wrong, stand firm on their positions, even during crisis ... That is a plus for them.

Thanks for that...


....and just for the record, there are plenty of things that I don't like about the Bush Admin.... overspending with the budget, not shutting down our borders to illegal immigration, (security NIGHTMARE), etc....

[sperbonzo]

in any case, it's funny that some of these same people in the quotes are know calling Bush a liar....

[tony286]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

....it always cracks me up when people go on about how you can't be critical of the government and there is no freedom of speech, and then I go into a Barnes & Noble and there are huge displays of books and movies all saying that Bush is the Anti-Christ.

THat is so not true most of the books are written by right wing pundits. Stoooooop

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by tony404

THat is so not true most of the books are written by right wing pundits. Stoooooop

We must live in different universes. I'll have to make a list next time I'm in a bookstore here in Miami

[pornguy]

The entire thing is a joke.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by pornguy

The entire thing is a joke.

My point with this post is that all these people that are jumping up and down about Bush being a liar were saying the same things even back in the early 90s.

The only difference is that they were thinking we should work through the UN, which is a joke, since the UN was making money off of cheating on the oil for food program. They had a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power for that, and the change over from petrodollars to petroeuros... (but then again, the UN has LYBIA on the human rights commision! )

[dig420]

no, the difference is that Clinton saw the problem and devoted the resources to it to keep anything like 9-11 from happening. When terrorists hit the basement of the WTC and the USS Cole Clinton caught them.

Bush's incompetence and arrogance made us weak enough to be vulnerable to an attack like 9-11 and let the ringleader get clean away.

[dig420]

and I bet you the congress and senate would have voted differently if they had known for SURE that Bush and Co. were totally full of shit and manufactured all their evidence for war. Instead everybody was just 'pretty sure' Bush was lying, which doesn't provide enough political cover in case the blind squirrel Bush found a nut.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by dig420

no, the difference is that Clinton saw the problem and devoted the resources to it to keep anything like 9-11 from happening. When terrorists hit the basement of the WTC and the USS Cole Clinton caught them.

Bush's incompetence and arrogance made us weak enough to be vulnerable to an attack like 9-11 and let the ringleader get clean away.

You have a very strong grasp of history...... especially the last 10 years or so

When did Bush take office? When exactly did he have time to "weaken" the US.

You're a funny guy.

[pornmonger]

Stick to porn and keep your mouth shut you fucking hippy!

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

"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 F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"[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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by dig420

and I bet you the congress and senate would have voted differently if they had known for SURE that Bush and Co. were totally full of shit and manufactured all their evidence for war. Instead everybody was just 'pretty sure' Bush was lying, which doesn't provide enough political cover in case the blind squirrel Bush found a nut.

I don't suppose that you noted the dates of some of those statments, or the fact that Russian and German intelligence thought the same thing that we did....that Iraq had WMDs..

The only difference is that they were making money with Saddam, and they had a deal to convert the petrodollar to the petroeuro.

It as all about economics.... silly

If it had been in the interest of the G8 to bring down Saddam, they would have

[spunkmaster]

Ha Ha Ha

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by pornmonger

Stick to porn and keep your mouth shut you fucking hippy!

I think that you may have missed the irony of this post.

A hippy, I'm not.

[High Plains Drifter]

Politicians talk all day long. That's what they do - they talk. There's a considerable difference between talking about invading a country and actually doing it.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by dig420

no, the difference is that Clinton saw the problem and devoted the resources to it to keep anything like 9-11 from happening. When terrorists hit the basement of the WTC and the USS Cole Clinton caught them.

Bush's incompetence and arrogance made us weak enough to be vulnerable to an attack like 9-11 and let the ringleader get clean away.

Wow. I didn't realize Bush could change the country and security policies so drastically within 9 months of having power. So al qaueda or bin laden or whoever didn't really plan 9/11 over several years, instead they planned and executed it within a few months only after George W. Bush took office and royally fucked our security policy.

I am in shock really. I didn't realize any politician could get anything done that quickly. Kudos to the terrorists for honing in on weakness and exploiting it so quickly and efficiently.

[reed_4]

Originally Posted by skinnywussy

Politicians talk all day long. That's what they do - they talk. There's a considerable difference between talking about invading a country and actually doing it.

You said it right dude, good point.

[ThunderBalls]

Originally Posted by Sly

Wow. I didn't realize Bush could change the country and security policies so drastically within 9 months of having power. So al qaueda or bin laden or whoever didn't really plan 9/11 over several years, instead they planned and executed it within a few months only after George W. Bush took office and royally fucked our security policy.

I am in shock really. I didn't realize any politician could get anything done that quickly. Kudos to the terrorists for honing in on weakness and exploiting it so quickly and efficiently.

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ce.transcript/

[bringer]

Originally Posted by dig420

no, the difference is that Clinton saw the problem and devoted the resources to it to keep anything like 9-11 from happening. When terrorists hit the basement of the WTC and the USS Cole Clinton caught them.

Bush's incompetence and arrogance made us weak enough to be vulnerable to an attack like 9-11 and let the ringleader get clean away.

what about the marc rich scandal? it was nice of your hero bill clinton to pardon him last minute so he could become a broker for Saddam. both parties are idiots and you picking sides shows how stupid you are.

-surfer

[Paul Markham]

The problem with the WMD theory was there was no solid evidence to back it up, in fact all the solid evidence pointed the other way.

He did have them, he used them and he was an evil man.

But from that it was decided with no solid evidence that he still had them and was very likely to use them. What this theory was based on was peoples imagination.

The country was starving, the oil embargo was severely restricting revenue. But Saddam and his friends were building vast palaces that cost a fortune. WMDs are not cheap nor easy to build, so where was the evidence that he had them?

A drawing of what a mobile lab would look like, is not evidence.

As for politicians, they will say anything that will get the votes. The truth is not always the best thing to say when you have a scare monger screaming about a non existant danger and you're trying to get elected.

[bringer]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The problem with the WMD theory was there was no solid evidence to back it up, in fact all the solid evidence pointed the other way.

He did have them, he used them and he was an evil man.

But from that it was decided with no solid evidence that he still had them and was very likely to use them. What this theory was based on was peoples imagination.

The country was starving, the oil embargo was severely restricting revenue. But Saddam and his friends were building vast palaces that cost a fortune. WMDs are not cheap nor easy to build, so where was the evidence that he had them?

A drawing of what a mobile lab would look like, is not evidence.

As for politicians, they will say anything that will get the votes. The truth is not always the best thing to say when you have a scare monger screaming about a non existant danger and you're trying to get elected.

he had them, he used them and wheres the evidence he still had them? the question should be wheres the evidence he destroyed them all? clinton bombed him in 1998 for kicking out the un weapons inspectors. where was the outrage then? the oil embargo was a joke aswell. didnt Kofi Annan's son work for a company illegally buying iraqi oil? i think the $1.7bil saddam got from these deals could of bought him some WMD. if you didnt demand solid proof from clinton, dont demand it from bush.

Good evening.

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 Iraq's 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.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

bush could of repeated this word for word and still of been called a liar.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by bringer

he had them, he used them and wheres the evidence he still had them? the question should be wheres the evidence he destroyed them all? clinton bombed him in 1998 for kicking out the un weapons inspectors. where was the outrage then? the oil embargo was a joke aswell. didnt Kofi Annan's son work for a company illegally buying iraqi oil? i think the $1.7bil saddam got from these deals could of bought him some WMD. if you didnt demand solid proof from clinton, dont demand it from bush.

I don't give a rats arse if it was Bush, Clinton or Mother Goose who ordered it. There was no evidence of WMD except in the imaginations of a few. America spends billions of dollars on intelligence. What a total waste of money and it's scary how wrong they could be.

Iran will run Iraq and the world is a worse and far more dangerous place. We are better off with Saddam. Better than Iran running Iraq, or do you think the solution is to invade Iran?

Then where will it be next, this is the fools route to Armegedon.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

We must live in different universes. I'll have to make a list next time I'm in a bookstore here in Miami

next time Im at the book store in atlanta I will do a tally and you do one it would be interesting if they stock them differently.

[FunkMachine]

B...b...but...... Bush looks like a chimp. And he is just like Hitler. And he is an evil neo-con, Nazi, Amerikkkan Illuminati member controlled by the Jews. Now, let's all take off our clothes and block an intersection then complain when the police move us.

/"progressive"

[MacDaddyPlaya]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

....and just for the record, there are plenty of things that I don't like about the Bush Admin.... overspending with the budget, not shutting down our borders to illegal immigration, (security NIGHTMARE), etc....

Is there anything about his administration that do like? How would you rate is performance? And....if he were able to run again, would you still vote for him?

[dig420]

Originally Posted by bringer

he had them, he used them and wheres the evidence he still had them? the question should be wheres the evidence he destroyed them all? clinton bombed him in 1998 for kicking out the un weapons inspectors. where was the outrage then? the oil embargo was a joke aswell. didnt Kofi Annan's son work for a company illegally buying iraqi oil? i think the $1.7bil saddam got from these deals could of bought him some WMD. if you didnt demand solid proof from clinton, dont demand it from bush.



bush could of repeated this word for word and still of been called a liar.

Clinton BOMBED him. He didn't commit an occupation force and he didn't spend upwards of 200 billion dollars doing it. ALSO the Republicans were bashing Clinton the whole time he was doing it for 'taking the attention away from Monica'.

Sly, you can be as sarcastic as you want, but if you're going to do that then do a little reading first. Bush and Co. were warned that terrorism and Bin Laden in particular had to be a priority when they took office. They didn't wanna hear it, we got bombed.

[dig420]

In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours, and Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered the strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As John F. Harris wrote in The Washington Post:


In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation ? from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) ? that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.
. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed ? he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier ? recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

[Beejeebers]

On the wmds, the U.S. knows that Iraq had them because the U.S. SOLD them to Iraq years earlier. The only problem that developed is Iraq destroyed all the evidence, but the U.S. is paranoid that some were well hidden and still exist.

[Bird]

It's the values bestowed in each individual thast is dangerous. Each Individual is a WMD.

[spanky part 2]

We attacked Iraq because they did 9-11......eh no.

Ok then, we attacked Iraq because of nukes.....ehhhh no.

Ok then, we attacked Iraq because of wmd's........ehhh no.

Ok then, we attacked Iraq to bring freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq....whew found a good one.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by FunkMachine

B...b...but...... Bush looks like a chimp. And he is just like Hitler. And he is an evil neo-con, Nazi, Amerikkkan Illuminati member controlled by the Jews. Now, let's all take off our clothes and block an intersection then complain when the police move us.

/"progressive"

ROTFLMAO!!!

[dig420]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

ROTFLMAO!!!

It's funny how much you conservatives like being lied to by your president while he runs the deficit up to record numbers intervening in the affairs of foreign countries and expands the power of the federal govt over states and individuals.

The REALLY funny thing is that everything that Bush does is totally contrary to classic conservative values, but you are so easy to propagandize you STILL think you're smarter than us while you support someone who is so blatantly corrupt and incompetent. and Anti-American, I might add.

[coolegg2]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

"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

.......

"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 | Source

Many of us were fooled by the Bush administration including those distinguished persons.

It used to be that when the President of the United States said something you could take that to the bank, because Presidents are traditionally VERY VERY careful about what they say, and they have literally hundreds of thousands of people working for them directly or indirectly on research and intelligence, and because Presidents traditionally understand that in order for the USA to continue to be THE power in the world those of us outside the USA have to be able to take a President at his word.

Then along came George W Bush and all that tradition and common sense went out the window.

I supported the war in Iraq just like that list of Democrats. I changed my mind about 3 months later when it was clear that something was very fucked up and WMDs were no where to be found.

I will never take a President of United States on his word again - Republican or Democrat - he will have to provide the proof or go fuck himself. Don't you Americans even bother sending a junior diplomat to the UN without evidence for everything he says; that's the way it's gonna have to be from now on.

Invading another country using false pretenses is the worst crime a country can commit.

Many of us were fooled. Kudos to those of you who saw through the bullshit before the invasion

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by coolegg2

Many of us were fooled by the Bush administration including those distinguished persons.

It used to be that when the President of the United States said something you could take that to the bank, because Presidents are traditionally VERY VERY careful about what they say, and they have literally hundreds of thousands of people working for them directly or indirectly on research and intelligence, and because Presidents traditionally understand that in order for the USA to continue to be THE power in the world those of us outside the USA have to be able to take a President at his word.

Then along came George W Bush and all that tradition and common sense went out the window.

I supported the war in Iraq just like that list of Democrats. I changed my mind about 3 months later when it was clear that something was very fucked up and WMDs were no where to be found.

I will never take a President of United States on his word again - Republican or Democrat - he will have to provide the proof or go fuck himself. Don't you Americans even bother sending a junior diplomat to the UN without evidence for everything he says; that's the way it's gonna have to be from now on.

Invading another country using false pretenses is the worst crime a country can commit.

Many of us were fooled. Kudos to those of you who saw through the bullshit before the invasion

I don't suppose that you noticed that a lot of those statements were being made before Bush even took office.....

As for the UN, you can keep it. They are as utterly as currupt as the League of Nations once became, they have no problem keeping murderous dictators in power that pay them off.... and they choose countries like LYBIA to sit on their human rights council, let alone the UN's response to Kosovo? What a Joke the UN has become!

Personally I would love to see the US move the UN out of NY and put it in the EU... let THEM deal with it.

[BlueQuartz]

Originally Posted by Screaming

So you think he didnt have WMD? You dont think he could have got rid of them?

yeah man thats it - he packed them on camels and sent them running LOL


with fuckign MORONS like you in the world 'bush the butcher' will be running riot for years


THERE ARE/WERE NO WMD's EVER - ONCE MORE - NO WMDS EVER!!!!

YOUR FUCKING SPINELESS REDNECK PRESIDENT LIED LIE HE DOES DAILY!!!!

GET A FUCKIGN GRIP ON IT - HE LIED - NO WMD's - GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEADS ALREADY!!

BUSH = MURDERER OF THE CENTURY

[coolegg2]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I don't suppose that you noticed that a lot of those statements were being made before Bush even took office.....

You are deliberately misleading. It is well-documented that Saddam Hussein was working on WMDs in the 80's and 90's. The only issue is did he have WMDs or was he working on creating them on when George W Bush said it was so in 2003 (in the days prior to the invasion). Simple as that. Did he? If so, where are they?

[BlueQuartz]

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

We attacked Iraq because they did 9-11......eh no.

Ok then, we attacked Iraq because of nukes.....ehhhh no.

Ok then, we attacked Iraq because of wmd's........ehhh no.

Ok then, we attacked Iraq to bring freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq....whew found a good one.

LOL

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by BlueQuartz

THERE ARE/WERE NO WMD's EVER - ONCE MORE - NO WMDS EVER!!!!

That's interesting.... you should tell that to the Kurdish women and children that he gassed with those non-WMDs....

They will probably feel pretty sheepish about dying in such large numbers from non-WMDs....

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by coolegg2

You are deliberately misleading. It is well-documented that Saddam Hussein was working on WMDs in the 80's and 90's. The only issue is did he have WMDs or was he working on creating them on when George W Bush said it was so in 2003 (in the days prior to the invasion). Simple as that. Did he? If so, where are they?

The one who was being deliberately misleading was Saddam himself.

How is it that no-one sees that?

[coolegg2]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

The one who was being deliberately misleading was Saddam himself.

So you don't think that your President lied to the world? Then where are the WMDs that he claimed he had proof of?