We have a volunteer military. People want to serve our country. There hasn't been a draft for iraq, and never will be. No one can say they don't feel bad for injured soldiers, and no one can say our military doesn't care about stabilizing iraq. No one should degrade troops who go to iraq with hope of making a difference. The issue isn't why we're in iraq anymore, the issue is "what now?". Bush bashing and whining is not the path to progress, try offering a solution.
If people can't see that the injuries and deaths that have occurred in Iraq are not justified by the benefits (WHAT benefits?) they should not be in office. And in a few months they will not be.
The war... America has not yet achieved the Class to apologize to the Arab world, Islamic world, and our own soldiers for this travesty/ mistake against all (listed).
We are the Moral humanitarians, creating deformed babies in Iraq with our 'dirty bombs' -depleted uranium.
-That's how we are helping liberate that country???
Trying to unite all of those Islamic tribes is like trying to civilize the Ahmish... Is our gov't nuts?
Tell me, topcat... Do you have anything substantive to offer? Or is the reason you resort to personal attack that you have nothing? Why are you attacking those who disagree with the war? Exactly what good do you think has been earned by 4,000 US troops dead, several times that many wounded, many many times THAT many innocent Iraqis dead or wounded?
Lionel and Phil Donahue? Two of the biggest far left loons in this country. Lionel works for Air America radio for crying out loud. People die in war, if we didn't get attacked on 9/11 we wouldn't be in a war. We haven't had an attack on our soil since 9/11. Let me guess, you believe asking terrorists to please stop killing innocent people will do the trick?
So you are one of the 15% or so who still think Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? Or that our illegal occupation of a sovereign land has had any effect other than to generate vastly MORE hatred against us? Al Qaeda's numbers and support have GROWN since we invade. Of course you won't get that info from Faux News. Wake up, open your eyes - you have been lied to and you are now carrying water for the liars.
Ok why did we go into Iraq? Fill me in. Tell me how your pals like the Clintons and Kerry and just about every other DEMOCRAT said Hussein had WMD's. Al Qaeda has been crippled since we have gone into Irq but you loons like Keith Olbermann and MSNBC would never tell you that because they are rooting for the United States to lose. Keep listening to far left propaganda. Crooks & Liars and Media Matters would be right up your ally.
It has long been part of the neocon agenda to take over an Arab country, install a puppet government, and set up a free enterprise state -- completely free, that is, of environmental controls, labor protection, heck, even *child* labor laws. 9/11 just provided an excuse. It's all on the PNAC web site, has been for years, no need to look further. Many supported the invasion did so because the Bush admin LIED about WMDs. Fact: Al Qaeda is STRONGER since we went to Iraq.
You are a FIRST CLASS LOON. Do you also believe 9/11 was an inside job? FACT Al Qaeda is WEAKER since we started this war on terror. FACT, things are turning around in Iraq and I am sure you hate to hear that. Keep getting your info from far left websites, I can take you to a site where they say Elvis is still alive. They love loons like you. Now if Bush lied that would mean the Clintons lied and John Kerry lied and John Edwards lied and Al Gore lied because they all saif hussein had WMD's chump
"the war in Iraq has focused the energies and resources of al-Qaeda and its followers" and is "diluting...the global counter-terrorism coalition" (Int'l Institute for Strategic Studies, tinyurl 5hv3bh); "made the war on terror "dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious" (Army War College Report), and has was followed by a RISE in int'l terrorism incidents (State Department Report). No, if I believe someone else's lie and act on it that doesn't make me a liar. Naive or foolish, but not a liar.
You really are foolish. Bill Clinton said Saddam Hussein had WMD's when he was president so you can't blame it on Bush. You really have to stop getting your info from far left websites. Now do you think 9/11 was an inside job?
(The IISS, the Army War College, and the Bush State Dept. are "far left" sources? Hah.) Yes, Clinton said that in 1998. We launched missile strikes against WMD facilities. Even if that intel was wrong the cost was small. But that was a different instance. Not even Bush claimed that Hussein had had WMD continuously since 1998. Intel provided by the Bush Admin supposedly showed Hussein was *once again* building WMD (despite the reports of the UN inspectors who said there was none).
The UN? The UN was getting paid off by Hussein. Also the inspectors were turned away by Hussein time after time. Hussein got what he deserved, he cried wolf and he is gone. How long are you loons going to cry about Iraq? Why is it you never cry about 9/11?
(Hussein had no money to bribe the UN.) Granted Hussein played a lot of games, but in the end the inspectors WERE in Iraq and inspecting and finding NO WMD when Bush told them "get out, we're invading." I shed no tears for Hussein, but nothing he did justified what we did, esp since many now have admitted that indeed the intel was faked! Stop trying to bring 9/11 into this - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. "bin Laden attacked us" is no excuse for our illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Hussein had a ton of money and he did bribe the UN. He violated the weapon inspections 17 times. He killed 100's of thousands of his own people. He said he had WMD's, it was right after 9/11 and Bush took no chances. All your hero democrats also thought he had WMD's Leaders of other countries said he had WMD's yet the only guy you can blame is Bush because of your hatred towards him. We went into Afghanistan and Iraq and we will win both wars, sorry to dissapoint you.
I find no proof that Hussein bribed the UN. Many dictators have killed many of their own people, but we don't go to war over that. As I said, I shed no tears for him. But the situation in the ME is FAR worse now than before, and it's Bush's fault. Bush's people provided the intel that misled everyone else. As for "winning", please define. We've already "won" in that Hussein is gone. Why are we still there? Afghanistan is yet again a different situation, stop trying to distract.
You find no proof because you don't want it to be true. This was reported years ago but you were to busy watching Olbermann. Google "Saddam bribed the UN" and learn.
We are still in Iraq because if we left Iran would invade and get even stronger. Terrorists would be running wild there.
Yeah, reported by Newt Gingrich - there's an unbiased source. Hah. Regardless, Hussein demonstrably had no WMD and ex Bush officials now admit that they lied about the intel that said he did have. Yes, Hussein claimed he had WMD... *as a bluff*, to discourage attacks from Iran and etc. It was stupid of us to call his bluff. Back to today: how do you define "win" and exactly what are we doing to work toward that goal? Besides paying Suni to fight with us instead of against us, that is.
"A senior UN official responsible for the scheme is identified as a major beneficiary. The report, marked "highly confidential", also finds that the private office of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, profited from the cheap oil. Saddam's regime awarded this oil during the run-up to the war when military action was being discussed at the UN."
There are still no claims anywhere that UN *weapons inspectors* were bribed. Anyway this is yet again an attempt by you at distraction. Fact: Congress approved going to war based on intel provided and interp'd by the Bush admin. Fact: several ex-Bush admin folk have now admitted THEY LIED. Fact: we've been there for years and found no WMD. btw: Lying to Congress is a felony. And any death that occurs as a result of a felony is first-degree murder.
LOL Now your true colors are coming through. Impeach Bush now!!! You moonbats are are truly a hoot. Do you also believe 9/11 was an inside job? You have yet to answer that one.
So, you didn't answer any of my points and you are resorting to more ad homs and trying to change the subject yet again. This is not about 9/11. Iraq never was about 9/11, and 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, except in the cons' propaganda. Why should we STOP at impeachment? If there is a credible case for a murder charge, the suspect should be charged and tried for that crime. No one should be considered to be above the law. n.b.: GWB is a strong proponent of the death penalty for that crime.
Now you want Bush killed! Just keep letting these moonbats ramble on and soon enough they will spill their guts and you will see why they are moonbats. Thanks.
No, I want him TRIED. You know, "jury of his peers", it's in the constitution. Back to Iraq: you constantly try to distract to other subjects, you use ad hominem arguments (that means "name calling"), you bring up long-disproven points. Fact: Congress approved going to war based on intel provided and interp'd by the Bush admin. Fact: several ex-Bush admin folk have now admitted THEY LIED. Don't you care that we've sent thousands of our men and women to die on the basis of lies?
You can't try someone without any EVIDENCE.Nobody admitted they lied, you see you make shit up as you go along. You here shit on far left loony websites and you believe it. Bush and everyone else believes Hussein had WMD's. You can't convict people for what they think. I just wish you were this upset about 9/11, but you probably applaud that.
So if Hussein had WMD, where are they? Where is the evidence that they ever existed? Why have we found NOTHING? Wolfowitz, for one, admitted that the "WMD thread" was just an excuse, settled on for "bureaucratic reasons." See also Colin Powell's recent comments on Meet the Press: the CIA was deliberately misled about WMD evidence. That's just two, found quickly. Want me to try for more? re. 9/11 - yet more topic-changing and ad homs from you. Try to stick to valid factual arguments, please.
Are you saying Hussein never had WMD's? He killed 100's of thousands of his own people with them you loon. You said they LIED. Show me where they said they LIED. So far you are 0 for 2. Try to stick with FACTS instead of your wild fantasies please. Try again.
You are trying to change the subject again. Nobody ever said Hussein *never* had WMD. Obviously, he gassed the Kurds with them. But he had destroyed them long before we invaded in 2003. Granted he claimed he had or was working on WMD at various times, as a BLUFF to try to maintain his prominence and relevance. 2. No, they didn't use the word "lie" but when they say "we knew at time X that A was not true," but back at time X they said A was true... What do you think "deliberately misled" means?
For one thing YOU said he never had them, here is your quote:
"So if Hussein had WMD, where are they? Where is the evidence that they ever existed?"
Now provide links or titles where ANYONE said Bush lied. You loons have been saying this impeachment crap for years. Why haven't the congress (run by democrats) done anything?
Of course we know Hussein had WMD (see Kurds) previously. I was referring to the WMD Bush claimed existed *at that time*, when he was using them as the excuse for an illegal war. Granted my wording was poor, but please, when you try to harp on such "points" you only look foolish. 2) re lies, see tinyurl 5e979x 3) Dems do not have enough to win a cloture vote in the Senate, so the Reps can fillibuster to death anything they don't like. No point wasting time on things that will just be derailed.
There's no proof he was "paying off the UN". There are accusations, afaict mostly unproven, that he was bribing certain officials -- some of whom were with the UN, others not. But that doesn't prove he was "paying off the UN" and thereby buying decisions favorable to Iraq, only that he was turning oil into money for himself instead of for food.
LMFAO! But there is proof Bush knew Hussein had no WMD's? You really are a hoot man. Hussein was bribing the U.N. and you try and stick up for him. Are you wearing a turban as we speak?
I gave you a link before. There was no evidence Hussein had or would soon have WMD - Bush and his admin. lied in saying that such evidence existed. I'm not "sticking up for Hussein," I'm sticking up for the UN inspectors' findings: there are not even accusations, let alone proof, that he bought good answers from the inspectors. Now please, respond with on-point facts or at least cogent arguments instead of all these attempts at distraction, ridicule, ad homs, straw men, and hyperbole.
Sure there was evidence. He used them before, he said he had them, he violated santions 17 times with weapons inspectors. He cried wolf and he was brought to justice by the end of a rope. Good job United States of America.
He used them before - in the past. He said he had them before - also in the past. LATER, he said he no longer had them. Violating sanctions? Not proof of existence of WMD. Hussein did want his enemies in the region to *believe* he had WMD, this was a bluff to keep them from attacking Iraq. Anybody with the slightest knowledge of what was going on (which apparently excludes all in the Bush State Dept) understood this. Too bad this coincided with Bush's search for an excuse to nation-build.
He wanted the United States to believe he had WMD's and we believed him. This was shortly after 9/11 and Bush was not going to take any chances of us getting attacked again. He was brought to justice by the Iraqi government. Now you want Bush in the electric chair! You are a hoot my loony friend.
But there was never any evidence that Iraq had WMD or a means to deliver them to the US, or that Iraq was behind the attack on 9/11, or that Iraq had any plans whatsoever to attack us in the future. So how is it credible that Bush's attack on Iraq reduced any threat to the U.S.? It has in fact worsened that threat: You invade someone's country, you make enemies there. Lots of enemies. What has the Iraq invasion done to hurt Al Qaeda, when they were never in Al Qaeda? But they are there now...
Sure there was evidence. Your hero Bill Clinton was convinced he had them or is he a liar also? It has worsened the threat? We have killed thousands of terrorists, they are nothing near what they were before. Iraq is getting better everyday, sorry to break the news to you.
Then why do later reviews conclude there was no evidence? Why did Bush omit alternate explanations, etc., from the evidence they presented to Congress, leaving only pieces that support their desire for war? 2) You are arguing in circles. I cited the State Dept. and other reports before - international terrorism incidents and Al Qaeda's influence INCREASED since our invasion. Iraq may well be "getting better" by some measure but it is still in far worse shape than before we went in.
Yet again you attempt to argue in circles. (You know, that sometimes works in a verbal argument, but on a web page the previous "cycle" are right here for all to see. It's really quite futile of you.) No, believing someone else's lie - or someone else's misleading evidence - is not lying. As I said before.
"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias".
IIRC Clinton made a similar statement on US TV during the lead-up to the invasion. But remember, after he left office he had no access to any info besides what the Bush admin gave the news media. Bush convinced a lot of people of that lie. That doesn't change the fact that it was the heavily slanted and carefully selected info provided by Bush's admin that led them to that belief.
Different situation and you are trying to change the subject yet again. Bush's case for war did not depend on anything Clinton said. In fact the Bush State Dept. was completely happy to ignore warnings from Clinton's people re. Al Qaeda and bin Laden, see Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill. The deaths of 4000+ servicemen and at least tens if not 100s of thousands of Iraqis are not on Clinton's hands. They most certainly are on Bush's.
Changing the subject? The SUBJECT is WMD's and Clinton said he had them so stop trying to hide on this. Why was Clinton lying when he said Hussein had WMD's? Clinton was too busy getting a blow job from an intern to concern himself with Hussein. Google "wag the dog". People die in war, sorry to tell you it's not a video game.
How do you know Iraq didn't have WMD during Clinton's admin? As I said, different times, different situation. But even if we assume for sake of argument that Clinton did knowingly lie about Iraq WMD while he was President, this would reduce Bush's culpability not one iota.
And btw, I never said EITHER "impeach" or "electric chair." Yet another attempt by you at a straw man argument.
How do you know he didn't have them during the Bush administration? Just because they were gone when we got there means nothing. What it shows is that you make excuses for Clinton but not for Bush. This is why you are called "moonbat".
And BTW, you did say Bush should be impeached and killed.
The point is not whether or not he had them at any time. The point is that Bush had no conclusive evidence that he did have them. There was equivocal evidence, but Bush provided to Congress only carefully selected pieces, omitting all possible alternate explanations. That's the lie that puts the blood on Bush's hands, regardless of anything Clinton said or did. Ah, no, I said we shouldn't STOP AT impeachment, and I never said a word about killing - I'm opposed to the death penalty.
Sure he had conclusive evidence, even leaders of other countries said Hussein had them (or did Bush convince them also?) Again Hussein said he had them, he broke sanctions time after time on them and he used them on his own people. The blood is on the terrorists hands, if they don't fly planes into buildings we don't go into Aghanistan or Iraq. BTW do you think 9/11 was an inside job?
The leaders of other countries were convinced by the evidence the Bush State Dept. The rest of this we've covered already: Saying he had them, playing hide and seek games with the inspectors, etc., was part of his bluff. Clinton understood this. Bush either did not, or didn't care, he was too interested in being a war pres. and in doing what Cheney told him re. Iraq.
No once again you are full of shit. They had there own independent consultants, they didn't rely on Bush. Does Bush rule the world? Damn you kill me. See what happens when you bluff? Bye bye Hussein. Clinton understood this? He said he was positive Hussein had WMD's, are you for real or what?
Why is it you are so ashamed to answer my question if you think 9/11 was an inside job?
No, they relied largely on Bush's evidence. Most countries do not have the field resources of either our State Dept or our CIA. And many countries, if you'll recall, DISAGREED with Bush's claims. Again, I don't see what Clinton has to do with Bush's decision to go to war. Are you saying Bush wasn't really in charge, that somehow Clinton deserves the blame? No, I know you're not, but that's how ridiculous it sounds when you keep harping back to Clinton.
No they relied on their own evidence. They have their own CIA, we are not talking about the Phillipines here. We are talking about countries like the UK, Canada, and many other countries that have many resources. Damn you act as if Bush ruled the world. Do you know how silly you sound when you say Bush lied but everyone else was just mistaken or following him?
Canada opposed the war. UK, sure, but Blair's govt strongly supported the neocon agenda. Poland? Oh yah, Poland has a LOT of intel resources in Iraq. (rolling eyes here) Israel? Of course they wouldn't oppose us. Kuwait of course are our good buds since GW1. Australia? Close ties to both US and UK, and no real intel assets of their own either. etc.
And btw, far more countries did not support the war than supported it.
We were talking about countries that supported the war. Of those, only the UK has significant independent intel resources and the Blair govt was in Bush's pocket anyway. Later investigations have shown their intel was just as misinterpreted and misrepresented as what Bush showed to Congress. I use tinyurl b/c youtube won't post a comment with a full URL in it. Also for brevity. Google tinyurl, you'll figure it out.
Why should we STOP at impeachment? If there is a credible case for a murder charge, the suspect should be charged and tried for that crime. No one should be considered to be above the law. n.b.: GWB is a strong proponent of the death penalty for that crime.
You're the one spinning that into calling for any killing or for impeachment. Le'ts not bother with impeachment, let's go straight to the murder trial, which btw unlike impeachment could be any time, not just before he leaves office. re killing, I'm just pointing out that it's kind of ironic: Bush sent over a hundred to the death penalty, and he appears to be guilty of a crime for which the punishment in some states is... the death penalty. I bet he'd change his mind on that issue.
LOL, murder trial? Well when is the murder trial going to be held? Will Bush be out on bail? Who is the prosecutor? I'm sure Bush is shaking in his boots! Who did Bush kill BTW? LMAO what a hoot. I'm all for the death penalty btw, you believe someone that kills someone else for the hell of it should live, why am I not surprised?
We went over the theory before: Lying to COngress is a felony, and under the felony murder law, any death that occurs as a result of a felony is murder by definition. Of course I don't think any such trial will ever be held. But Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor who tried Charles Manson, has laid all this out in a book. Who am I to argue with him?
It's funny... whenever the righties are finally backed into a corner when trying to defend Bush, they always come up with "...but Clinton...!" It's a sure sign that they KNOW they're in a corner. n.b.: As President, Bush does not get to blame his bad decisions on anything from the previous admin. He is responsible for what he does during his term.
No you are wrong once again. You see once you start calling Bush a liar on the WMD's you have to call Clinton a liar and you can't do it. It kills your fantasy every time.
A lie is the KNOWING telling of a falsehood. Bush knew the evidence he provided to Congress was carefully edited and selected to justify his dreams of being a War President just like his daddy. Now if Clinton ALSO lied re Iraq's WMD, I won't defend him; I'll call him a liar too. otoh, a mistake is not the same as a lie. To claim that it is would be dishonest on your part. Again: Bush lied to justify the war and nothing Clinton did or said mitigates that offense.
What did Bush say that was a falsehood that he KNEW. Again if we weren't attacked on 9/11 we don't go to war so you can thak the terrorists for that. Now for the 4th time, DO YOU BELIEVE 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB?
I gave a tinyurl link to a whole list of Bush lies before. Re 9/11, how was the war on Iraq an appropriate response to 9/11 when Iraq was not behind 9/11??? None of the hijackers were Iraqis, Hussein did not support Al Qaeda, etc. In fact bin Laden despised Hussein as being far too westernized.
I don't see what my opinion on that has to do with whether or not Bush lied. Anyway, if I say "yes it was an inside job" you'll just call me a loon; if I say no it wasn't, you'll say "then why do you think we shouldn't respond when we're attacked?" and we have covered that already (it wasn't Iraq who attacked us). So why should I play your game? You might consider, though: have you ever met a "9/11 truther" (their term) who was at all shy about that opinion? I now consider this branch closed.
And bird was in the KKK
Obelisk2290 2 years ago
We have a volunteer military. People want to serve our country. There hasn't been a draft for iraq, and never will be. No one can say they don't feel bad for injured soldiers, and no one can say our military doesn't care about stabilizing iraq. No one should degrade troops who go to iraq with hope of making a difference. The issue isn't why we're in iraq anymore, the issue is "what now?". Bush bashing and whining is not the path to progress, try offering a solution.
mfg0308 3 years ago
Phil Donahue, Will you marry me? What a brave, courageous, intelligent man!!!
Alicecbrown 3 years ago
If people can't take the chance of injury and death you shouldn't go to war. Stupid idiots.
ChallengeDK 3 years ago
If people can't see that the injuries and deaths that have occurred in Iraq are not justified by the benefits (WHAT benefits?) they should not be in office. And in a few months they will not be.
jeh14 3 years ago
The war... America has not yet achieved the Class to apologize to the Arab world, Islamic world, and our own soldiers for this travesty/ mistake against all (listed).
We are the Moral humanitarians, creating deformed babies in Iraq with our 'dirty bombs' -depleted uranium.
-That's how we are helping liberate that country???
Trying to unite all of those Islamic tribes is like trying to civilize the Ahmish... Is our gov't nuts?
It's easier to breed more terrorism.
-WE ARE DOING JUST THAT.
bubblerings 3 years ago
Al B. Seeinya,
Two camera cuts are MUCH better than static shots.
The Lionel Show is without a doubt the greatest show ever!
By the way, I LOVE the Chinese guy.
J820709Y 3 years ago
Two moonbats blowing each other.
topcat42 3 years ago
Tell me, topcat... Do you have anything substantive to offer? Or is the reason you resort to personal attack that you have nothing? Why are you attacking those who disagree with the war? Exactly what good do you think has been earned by 4,000 US troops dead, several times that many wounded, many many times THAT many innocent Iraqis dead or wounded?
jeh14 3 years ago
Lionel and Phil Donahue? Two of the biggest far left loons in this country. Lionel works for Air America radio for crying out loud. People die in war, if we didn't get attacked on 9/11 we wouldn't be in a war. We haven't had an attack on our soil since 9/11. Let me guess, you believe asking terrorists to please stop killing innocent people will do the trick?
topcat42 3 years ago
So you are one of the 15% or so who still think Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? Or that our illegal occupation of a sovereign land has had any effect other than to generate vastly MORE hatred against us? Al Qaeda's numbers and support have GROWN since we invade. Of course you won't get that info from Faux News. Wake up, open your eyes - you have been lied to and you are now carrying water for the liars.
jeh14 3 years ago
Ok why did we go into Iraq? Fill me in. Tell me how your pals like the Clintons and Kerry and just about every other DEMOCRAT said Hussein had WMD's. Al Qaeda has been crippled since we have gone into Irq but you loons like Keith Olbermann and MSNBC would never tell you that because they are rooting for the United States to lose. Keep listening to far left propaganda. Crooks & Liars and Media Matters would be right up your ally.
topcat42 3 years ago
It has long been part of the neocon agenda to take over an Arab country, install a puppet government, and set up a free enterprise state -- completely free, that is, of environmental controls, labor protection, heck, even *child* labor laws. 9/11 just provided an excuse. It's all on the PNAC web site, has been for years, no need to look further. Many supported the invasion did so because the Bush admin LIED about WMDs. Fact: Al Qaeda is STRONGER since we went to Iraq.
jeh14 3 years ago
You are a FIRST CLASS LOON. Do you also believe 9/11 was an inside job? FACT Al Qaeda is WEAKER since we started this war on terror. FACT, things are turning around in Iraq and I am sure you hate to hear that. Keep getting your info from far left websites, I can take you to a site where they say Elvis is still alive. They love loons like you. Now if Bush lied that would mean the Clintons lied and John Kerry lied and John Edwards lied and Al Gore lied because they all saif hussein had WMD's chump
topcat42 3 years ago
"the war in Iraq has focused the energies and resources of al-Qaeda and its followers" and is "diluting...the global counter-terrorism coalition" (Int'l Institute for Strategic Studies, tinyurl 5hv3bh); "made the war on terror "dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious" (Army War College Report), and has was followed by a RISE in int'l terrorism incidents (State Department Report). No, if I believe someone else's lie and act on it that doesn't make me a liar. Naive or foolish, but not a liar.
jeh14 3 years ago
You really are foolish. Bill Clinton said Saddam Hussein had WMD's when he was president so you can't blame it on Bush. You really have to stop getting your info from far left websites. Now do you think 9/11 was an inside job?
topcat42 3 years ago
(The IISS, the Army War College, and the Bush State Dept. are "far left" sources? Hah.) Yes, Clinton said that in 1998. We launched missile strikes against WMD facilities. Even if that intel was wrong the cost was small. But that was a different instance. Not even Bush claimed that Hussein had had WMD continuously since 1998. Intel provided by the Bush Admin supposedly showed Hussein was *once again* building WMD (despite the reports of the UN inspectors who said there was none).
jeh14 3 years ago
The UN? The UN was getting paid off by Hussein. Also the inspectors were turned away by Hussein time after time. Hussein got what he deserved, he cried wolf and he is gone. How long are you loons going to cry about Iraq? Why is it you never cry about 9/11?
topcat42 3 years ago
(Hussein had no money to bribe the UN.) Granted Hussein played a lot of games, but in the end the inspectors WERE in Iraq and inspecting and finding NO WMD when Bush told them "get out, we're invading." I shed no tears for Hussein, but nothing he did justified what we did, esp since many now have admitted that indeed the intel was faked! Stop trying to bring 9/11 into this - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. "bin Laden attacked us" is no excuse for our illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.
jeh14 3 years ago
Hussein had a ton of money and he did bribe the UN. He violated the weapon inspections 17 times. He killed 100's of thousands of his own people. He said he had WMD's, it was right after 9/11 and Bush took no chances. All your hero democrats also thought he had WMD's Leaders of other countries said he had WMD's yet the only guy you can blame is Bush because of your hatred towards him. We went into Afghanistan and Iraq and we will win both wars, sorry to dissapoint you.
topcat42 3 years ago
I find no proof that Hussein bribed the UN. Many dictators have killed many of their own people, but we don't go to war over that. As I said, I shed no tears for him. But the situation in the ME is FAR worse now than before, and it's Bush's fault. Bush's people provided the intel that misled everyone else. As for "winning", please define. We've already "won" in that Hussein is gone. Why are we still there? Afghanistan is yet again a different situation, stop trying to distract.
jeh14 3 years ago
You find no proof because you don't want it to be true. This was reported years ago but you were to busy watching Olbermann. Google "Saddam bribed the UN" and learn.
We are still in Iraq because if we left Iran would invade and get even stronger. Terrorists would be running wild there.
topcat42 3 years ago
Yeah, reported by Newt Gingrich - there's an unbiased source. Hah. Regardless, Hussein demonstrably had no WMD and ex Bush officials now admit that they lied about the intel that said he did have. Yes, Hussein claimed he had WMD... *as a bluff*, to discourage attacks from Iran and etc. It was stupid of us to call his bluff. Back to today: how do you define "win" and exactly what are we doing to work toward that goal? Besides paying Suni to fight with us instead of against us, that is.
jeh14 3 years ago
"A senior UN official responsible for the scheme is identified as a major beneficiary. The report, marked "highly confidential", also finds that the private office of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, profited from the cheap oil. Saddam's regime awarded this oil during the run-up to the war when military action was being discussed at the UN."
Right from the Sunday Times. Wake up.
topcat42 3 years ago
There are still no claims anywhere that UN *weapons inspectors* were bribed. Anyway this is yet again an attempt by you at distraction. Fact: Congress approved going to war based on intel provided and interp'd by the Bush admin. Fact: several ex-Bush admin folk have now admitted THEY LIED. Fact: we've been there for years and found no WMD. btw: Lying to Congress is a felony. And any death that occurs as a result of a felony is first-degree murder.
jeh14 3 years ago
LOL Now your true colors are coming through. Impeach Bush now!!! You moonbats are are truly a hoot. Do you also believe 9/11 was an inside job? You have yet to answer that one.
topcat42 3 years ago
So, you didn't answer any of my points and you are resorting to more ad homs and trying to change the subject yet again. This is not about 9/11. Iraq never was about 9/11, and 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, except in the cons' propaganda. Why should we STOP at impeachment? If there is a credible case for a murder charge, the suspect should be charged and tried for that crime. No one should be considered to be above the law. n.b.: GWB is a strong proponent of the death penalty for that crime.
jeh14 3 years ago
Now you want Bush killed! Just keep letting these moonbats ramble on and soon enough they will spill their guts and you will see why they are moonbats. Thanks.
topcat42 3 years ago
No, I want him TRIED. You know, "jury of his peers", it's in the constitution. Back to Iraq: you constantly try to distract to other subjects, you use ad hominem arguments (that means "name calling"), you bring up long-disproven points. Fact: Congress approved going to war based on intel provided and interp'd by the Bush admin. Fact: several ex-Bush admin folk have now admitted THEY LIED. Don't you care that we've sent thousands of our men and women to die on the basis of lies?
jeh14 3 years ago
You can't try someone without any EVIDENCE.Nobody admitted they lied, you see you make shit up as you go along. You here shit on far left loony websites and you believe it. Bush and everyone else believes Hussein had WMD's. You can't convict people for what they think. I just wish you were this upset about 9/11, but you probably applaud that.
topcat42 3 years ago
So if Hussein had WMD, where are they? Where is the evidence that they ever existed? Why have we found NOTHING? Wolfowitz, for one, admitted that the "WMD thread" was just an excuse, settled on for "bureaucratic reasons." See also Colin Powell's recent comments on Meet the Press: the CIA was deliberately misled about WMD evidence. That's just two, found quickly. Want me to try for more? re. 9/11 - yet more topic-changing and ad homs from you. Try to stick to valid factual arguments, please.
jeh14 3 years ago
Are you saying Hussein never had WMD's? He killed 100's of thousands of his own people with them you loon. You said they LIED. Show me where they said they LIED. So far you are 0 for 2. Try to stick with FACTS instead of your wild fantasies please. Try again.
topcat42 3 years ago
You are trying to change the subject again. Nobody ever said Hussein *never* had WMD. Obviously, he gassed the Kurds with them. But he had destroyed them long before we invaded in 2003. Granted he claimed he had or was working on WMD at various times, as a BLUFF to try to maintain his prominence and relevance. 2. No, they didn't use the word "lie" but when they say "we knew at time X that A was not true," but back at time X they said A was true... What do you think "deliberately misled" means?
jeh14 3 years ago
For one thing YOU said he never had them, here is your quote:
"So if Hussein had WMD, where are they? Where is the evidence that they ever existed?"
Now provide links or titles where ANYONE said Bush lied. You loons have been saying this impeachment crap for years. Why haven't the congress (run by democrats) done anything?
topcat42 3 years ago
Of course we know Hussein had WMD (see Kurds) previously. I was referring to the WMD Bush claimed existed *at that time*, when he was using them as the excuse for an illegal war. Granted my wording was poor, but please, when you try to harp on such "points" you only look foolish. 2) re lies, see tinyurl 5e979x 3) Dems do not have enough to win a cloture vote in the Senate, so the Reps can fillibuster to death anything they don't like. No point wasting time on things that will just be derailed.
jeh14 3 years ago
Werll not sure if you knew he had WMD's because you didn't even know he was paying off the UN. You mean no point in wasting time on foolish claims.
topcat42 3 years ago
There's no proof he was "paying off the UN". There are accusations, afaict mostly unproven, that he was bribing certain officials -- some of whom were with the UN, others not. But that doesn't prove he was "paying off the UN" and thereby buying decisions favorable to Iraq, only that he was turning oil into money for himself instead of for food.
jeh14 3 years ago
LMFAO! But there is proof Bush knew Hussein had no WMD's? You really are a hoot man. Hussein was bribing the U.N. and you try and stick up for him. Are you wearing a turban as we speak?
topcat42 3 years ago
I gave you a link before. There was no evidence Hussein had or would soon have WMD - Bush and his admin. lied in saying that such evidence existed. I'm not "sticking up for Hussein," I'm sticking up for the UN inspectors' findings: there are not even accusations, let alone proof, that he bought good answers from the inspectors. Now please, respond with on-point facts or at least cogent arguments instead of all these attempts at distraction, ridicule, ad homs, straw men, and hyperbole.
jeh14 3 years ago
Sure there was evidence. He used them before, he said he had them, he violated santions 17 times with weapons inspectors. He cried wolf and he was brought to justice by the end of a rope. Good job United States of America.
topcat42 3 years ago
He used them before - in the past. He said he had them before - also in the past. LATER, he said he no longer had them. Violating sanctions? Not proof of existence of WMD. Hussein did want his enemies in the region to *believe* he had WMD, this was a bluff to keep them from attacking Iraq. Anybody with the slightest knowledge of what was going on (which apparently excludes all in the Bush State Dept) understood this. Too bad this coincided with Bush's search for an excuse to nation-build.
jeh14 3 years ago
He wanted the United States to believe he had WMD's and we believed him. This was shortly after 9/11 and Bush was not going to take any chances of us getting attacked again. He was brought to justice by the Iraqi government. Now you want Bush in the electric chair! You are a hoot my loony friend.
topcat42 3 years ago
But there was never any evidence that Iraq had WMD or a means to deliver them to the US, or that Iraq was behind the attack on 9/11, or that Iraq had any plans whatsoever to attack us in the future. So how is it credible that Bush's attack on Iraq reduced any threat to the U.S.? It has in fact worsened that threat: You invade someone's country, you make enemies there. Lots of enemies. What has the Iraq invasion done to hurt Al Qaeda, when they were never in Al Qaeda? But they are there now...
jeh14 3 years ago
Sure there was evidence. Your hero Bill Clinton was convinced he had them or is he a liar also? It has worsened the threat? We have killed thousands of terrorists, they are nothing near what they were before. Iraq is getting better everyday, sorry to break the news to you.
topcat42 3 years ago
Then why do later reviews conclude there was no evidence? Why did Bush omit alternate explanations, etc., from the evidence they presented to Congress, leaving only pieces that support their desire for war? 2) You are arguing in circles. I cited the State Dept. and other reports before - international terrorism incidents and Al Qaeda's influence INCREASED since our invasion. Iraq may well be "getting better" by some measure but it is still in far worse shape than before we went in.
jeh14 3 years ago
So you are calling Bill Clinton a liar also? You see, you can't call Bush a liar without calling Clinton one that is your major problem here.
topcat42 3 years ago
Yet again you attempt to argue in circles. (You know, that sometimes works in a verbal argument, but on a web page the previous "cycle" are right here for all to see. It's really quite futile of you.) No, believing someone else's lie - or someone else's misleading evidence - is not lying. As I said before.
jeh14 3 years ago
Yet again you spin like a top. Good luck on your IMPEACH BUSH and ELECTRIC CHAIR proceedings.
topcat42 3 years ago
"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias".
Right from your hero Bill Clinton. Give it up.
topcat42 3 years ago
IIRC Clinton made a similar statement on US TV during the lead-up to the invasion. But remember, after he left office he had no access to any info besides what the Bush admin gave the news media. Bush convinced a lot of people of that lie. That doesn't change the fact that it was the heavily slanted and carefully selected info provided by Bush's admin that led them to that belief.
jeh14 3 years ago
But remember before he left office he was convinced Hussein had WMD's. Why was Clinton lying?
topcat42 3 years ago
Different situation and you are trying to change the subject yet again. Bush's case for war did not depend on anything Clinton said. In fact the Bush State Dept. was completely happy to ignore warnings from Clinton's people re. Al Qaeda and bin Laden, see Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill. The deaths of 4000+ servicemen and at least tens if not 100s of thousands of Iraqis are not on Clinton's hands. They most certainly are on Bush's.
jeh14 3 years ago
Changing the subject? The SUBJECT is WMD's and Clinton said he had them so stop trying to hide on this. Why was Clinton lying when he said Hussein had WMD's? Clinton was too busy getting a blow job from an intern to concern himself with Hussein. Google "wag the dog". People die in war, sorry to tell you it's not a video game.
topcat42 3 years ago
How do you know Iraq didn't have WMD during Clinton's admin? As I said, different times, different situation. But even if we assume for sake of argument that Clinton did knowingly lie about Iraq WMD while he was President, this would reduce Bush's culpability not one iota.
And btw, I never said EITHER "impeach" or "electric chair." Yet another attempt by you at a straw man argument.
jeh14 3 years ago
How do you know he didn't have them during the Bush administration? Just because they were gone when we got there means nothing. What it shows is that you make excuses for Clinton but not for Bush. This is why you are called "moonbat".
And BTW, you did say Bush should be impeached and killed.
topcat42 3 years ago
The point is not whether or not he had them at any time. The point is that Bush had no conclusive evidence that he did have them. There was equivocal evidence, but Bush provided to Congress only carefully selected pieces, omitting all possible alternate explanations. That's the lie that puts the blood on Bush's hands, regardless of anything Clinton said or did. Ah, no, I said we shouldn't STOP AT impeachment, and I never said a word about killing - I'm opposed to the death penalty.
jeh14 3 years ago
Sure he had conclusive evidence, even leaders of other countries said Hussein had them (or did Bush convince them also?) Again Hussein said he had them, he broke sanctions time after time on them and he used them on his own people. The blood is on the terrorists hands, if they don't fly planes into buildings we don't go into Aghanistan or Iraq. BTW do you think 9/11 was an inside job?
topcat42 3 years ago
The leaders of other countries were convinced by the evidence the Bush State Dept. The rest of this we've covered already: Saying he had them, playing hide and seek games with the inspectors, etc., was part of his bluff. Clinton understood this. Bush either did not, or didn't care, he was too interested in being a war pres. and in doing what Cheney told him re. Iraq.
jeh14 3 years ago
No once again you are full of shit. They had there own independent consultants, they didn't rely on Bush. Does Bush rule the world? Damn you kill me. See what happens when you bluff? Bye bye Hussein. Clinton understood this? He said he was positive Hussein had WMD's, are you for real or what?
Why is it you are so ashamed to answer my question if you think 9/11 was an inside job?
topcat42 3 years ago
No, they relied largely on Bush's evidence. Most countries do not have the field resources of either our State Dept or our CIA. And many countries, if you'll recall, DISAGREED with Bush's claims. Again, I don't see what Clinton has to do with Bush's decision to go to war. Are you saying Bush wasn't really in charge, that somehow Clinton deserves the blame? No, I know you're not, but that's how ridiculous it sounds when you keep harping back to Clinton.
jeh14 3 years ago
No they relied on their own evidence. They have their own CIA, we are not talking about the Phillipines here. We are talking about countries like the UK, Canada, and many other countries that have many resources. Damn you act as if Bush ruled the world. Do you know how silly you sound when you say Bush lied but everyone else was just mistaken or following him?
topcat42 3 years ago
Canada opposed the war. UK, sure, but Blair's govt strongly supported the neocon agenda. Poland? Oh yah, Poland has a LOT of intel resources in Iraq. (rolling eyes here) Israel? Of course they wouldn't oppose us. Kuwait of course are our good buds since GW1. Australia? Close ties to both US and UK, and no real intel assets of their own either. etc.
And btw, far more countries did not support the war than supported it.
Oh - more re lies: tinyurl yqllcu
and 3suadg
jeh14 3 years ago
You are making my point for me. Canada opposed the war on their own investigation while the UK did their own investigation and said Saddam had WMD's.
What the hell are those tinyurl things you are posting out here? give me the link.
topcat42 3 years ago
We were talking about countries that supported the war. Of those, only the UK has significant independent intel resources and the Blair govt was in Bush's pocket anyway. Later investigations have shown their intel was just as misinterpreted and misrepresented as what Bush showed to Congress. I use tinyurl b/c youtube won't post a comment with a full URL in it. Also for brevity. Google tinyurl, you'll figure it out.
jeh14 3 years ago
Here is your quote:
Why should we STOP at impeachment? If there is a credible case for a murder charge, the suspect should be charged and tried for that crime. No one should be considered to be above the law. n.b.: GWB is a strong proponent of the death penalty for that crime.
Spin it anyway you want.
topcat42 3 years ago
You're the one spinning that into calling for any killing or for impeachment. Le'ts not bother with impeachment, let's go straight to the murder trial, which btw unlike impeachment could be any time, not just before he leaves office. re killing, I'm just pointing out that it's kind of ironic: Bush sent over a hundred to the death penalty, and he appears to be guilty of a crime for which the punishment in some states is... the death penalty. I bet he'd change his mind on that issue.
jeh14 3 years ago
LOL, murder trial? Well when is the murder trial going to be held? Will Bush be out on bail? Who is the prosecutor? I'm sure Bush is shaking in his boots! Who did Bush kill BTW? LMAO what a hoot. I'm all for the death penalty btw, you believe someone that kills someone else for the hell of it should live, why am I not surprised?
topcat42 3 years ago
We went over the theory before: Lying to COngress is a felony, and under the felony murder law, any death that occurs as a result of a felony is murder by definition. Of course I don't think any such trial will ever be held. But Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor who tried Charles Manson, has laid all this out in a book. Who am I to argue with him?
jeh14 3 years ago
Well I guess that ends that, if Vincent Bugliosi says Bush should be tried for murder that does it, afterall he did try C
topcat42 3 years ago
Well I guess that ends that, if Vincent Bugliosi says Bush should be tried for murder that does it, after all he did try Charlie Manson!
topcat42 3 years ago
It's funny... whenever the righties are finally backed into a corner when trying to defend Bush, they always come up with "...but Clinton...!" It's a sure sign that they KNOW they're in a corner. n.b.: As President, Bush does not get to blame his bad decisions on anything from the previous admin. He is responsible for what he does during his term.
jeh14 3 years ago
No you are wrong once again. You see once you start calling Bush a liar on the WMD's you have to call Clinton a liar and you can't do it. It kills your fantasy every time.
topcat42 3 years ago
A lie is the KNOWING telling of a falsehood. Bush knew the evidence he provided to Congress was carefully edited and selected to justify his dreams of being a War President just like his daddy. Now if Clinton ALSO lied re Iraq's WMD, I won't defend him; I'll call him a liar too. otoh, a mistake is not the same as a lie. To claim that it is would be dishonest on your part. Again: Bush lied to justify the war and nothing Clinton did or said mitigates that offense.
jeh14 3 years ago
What did Bush say that was a falsehood that he KNEW. Again if we weren't attacked on 9/11 we don't go to war so you can thak the terrorists for that. Now for the 4th time, DO YOU BELIEVE 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB?
topcat42 3 years ago
I gave a tinyurl link to a whole list of Bush lies before. Re 9/11, how was the war on Iraq an appropriate response to 9/11 when Iraq was not behind 9/11??? None of the hijackers were Iraqis, Hussein did not support Al Qaeda, etc. In fact bin Laden despised Hussein as being far too westernized.
jeh14 3 years ago
So do you think 9/11 was an inside job?
topcat42 3 years ago
I don't see what my opinion on that has to do with whether or not Bush lied. Anyway, if I say "yes it was an inside job" you'll just call me a loon; if I say no it wasn't, you'll say "then why do you think we shouldn't respond when we're attacked?" and we have covered that already (it wasn't Iraq who attacked us). So why should I play your game? You might consider, though: have you ever met a "9/11 truther" (their term) who was at all shy about that opinion? I now consider this branch closed.
jeh14 3 years ago
Just can't answer a simple question with a simple yes or no huh? Gee I wonder why?
topcat42 3 years ago
Great shit! The sexual tension between those two was PAL-PA-BLE. Am I right?
Rock on!
LionelFan4Eva 3 years ago
Do you all like the two camera cuts? Would you rather have a static split screen.
- Al B. Seeinya.
TheLionelShow 3 years ago