Gratifying to see Obama described as an unlikely president? Is it not evident to Obama backers they & other Dem's elected a inexerienced nonentity obscure professor with no publications? A man without military, economic, financial, business, foreign policy, or executive experience, gifted with a talent for self-promotion & vapid slogans like change. This pathetic creature is expected to lead, inspire,& direct us out of Recession, unite the nation, strengthen it internationallly?
I can give science source that Saddam still tried to get nuclear enrichment technology in 1996. Germany even charged somebody for treason because of it.
Google: Iraq's Acquisition of Gas Centrifuge Technology
whether or not sadaam had "wmd's" he murdered his people by the hundreds of thousands. its funny how you life loving democrats look right past the mass graves and blame bush for all the problems in the mid east. if you hate the usa, you obviously hate yourself.
Iraq never had WMD weapons, it was just a game since 1980, and they still playing it America,Isreal,and Iran,America told Saddam to start the war against Iran in 1980 and in 3 days they will call VITO,but actually they didn't and they war continued till 1988 plus,Iraq destroyed Iran and Iran Requested the ceasefire, so of course AMERICA didn't like that,so they had to make and Iraq kuwit war was planned from america too because of the oilAmerica is controlling the world,but god is alive..
@Shibel5663432 iraq did use wmd on his own people, and told all the country's next to him that he would use it on them, thats true, now if he had no wmd then he shouldnt have said that, saddam was a bad,crazy person
@brokenjustice "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." Former President Clinton During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live" July 22, 2003
@BoogieWithStew Outgoing Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, informed incoming President George Bush in January of 2000: “Iraq no longer poses a military threat to its neighbors.”
Type that quote into google, its a popular one. And it's used in Oil power and empire, Larry Everest's book.
Although it doesnt prove the case, Bill Clinton has been known to lie to the public with Monica Lewinski. The 2003 war was a continuation of Clinton's sanction policy. He probably supported the war.
@brokenjustice “Iraq no longer poses a military threat to its neighbors.” Neighbors were not the primary concern, built rather providing WMD to terrorists. See countless Democrats make this claim, long before Bush stepped into the White House:
@blackjerryboymetal no, they were ALLOWED by the US, we provided the funding for the weapons, after the Shah of Iran was overthrown, then turned our backs on the Kurds when they got slaughtered.
@blackjerryboymetal Then...that just proves The republicans block any action by a democrat even if they think it could help the country putting us at risk.
@blackjerryboymetal and congress was under republican contol in 98'. So if Clinton wanted to invade (as you say he did, but he didnt) he couldnt because the republicans blocked it. Second, these were strategic airstrikes, not a full fucking invasion. The technology we have today, made it impossible for Saddam to create weapons. he said so himself. He said he intended to mnake wmd's again, but the airstrikes clinton used made him want to wait so long as the sanctions were in place.
I have no doubt Saddam HAD wmds of minimal damage, but its been conlcuded and stated by saddam himself, that he chose not to keep building them after these airstrikes because he could not so loong as the sanctions were in place. He didnt invade with a quarter million troops. 4,500 didnt die and 40,000 injured. He launched strategic strikes IN RESPONSE to an action as opposed to preemptively. If we didnt find wmd's it probably was because of these airstrikes.
@BoogieWithStew why would i trust his words? Its only that his words turned out to be right (there were no significant weapons), and we turned out to be wrong. (Well lying in my opinion). If you can launch cruise missiles and prevent a guy from gaining weapons programs instead of full scale invading, why would you spend 600 billion dollars, 4,500 dead soldiers and over total 1 million dead, after all's said and done to "bring democracy" to a place thats only strategic interest was oil.
@Ac220404 Don't cruise missiles kill people? As noted earlier, President Clinton stated it was "incontestable" that Saddam had WMD when GWB took office in 2001. Bringing democracy to other nations has always been a long-term strategic objective of the United States -- not out of altruism, but because modern and free peoples typically do not threaten other nations.
@Ac220404 As for "oil," wars have been fought over natural resources for many centuries. But Saddam was not removed to access oil, as it would have been far easier and cheaper to simply lift sanctions. You also overlook the cost of maintaining the status quo by keeping Saddam in power -- billions of US dollars every year in-perpetuity, endless mass graves filled with women and children, etc, etc.
@blackjerryboymetal Stop calling people a dummy just because you are a 100 pound loser who can't get a girl friend (I see you in your display pic... what a joke). Stop picking and choosing for one thing. In common knowledge that the US helped install the Ba'ath party and provided Saddam with intel and the weapons he wanted for his war against Iran. That's a fact buddy so get off your ass and do a little research. Study the cold war and the problems in asia minor during the 1980s.
@blackjerryboymetal All those weapons were provided by the US government to the Ba'ath party for the Iraq-Iran war... With your tax dollars. You are idiot.
President Clinton warned the nation that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in 1998 and no one not even the democrats at the time disputed that yet in 2003 many of the democrats were saying the exact opposite that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destrction and President Bush had no probable cause for invading Iraq. If that's what they believe then why were they not critizising President Clinton in 1998 as they did President Bush in 2003 and beyond.
President Clinton warned the nation that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in 1998 and no one not even the democrats at the time disputed that yet in 2003 many of the democrats were saying the exact opposite that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destrction and President Bush had no probable cause for invading Iraq. If that's what they believe then why were they not critizising President Clinton in 1998 as they did President Bush in 2003 and beyond.
This is complete bullshit based on the fake right left paradigm. Most people I talk to are sick of it we dont care weather you are a dem or rep. your all playin the same shit. pointing the finger at each other with one hand and propping each other with the other. Its bs and the people arent buying it anymore!
To suggest Democrats, by virtue of their political affilation, don't carry the same human propensity towards violence is specious. People are people. Change must occur at a much more fundamental and basic level than in just the political arena, i.e. in each one of us. That Democrats walk hand in hand with Republicans down a road manifesting violence in its most extreme measure, suggests something much more sinister outside the scope of our voting power-someone else is pulling the the strings.
Things that Democrats rely on: an uninformed public, a forgetful/biased media, and using President George W. Bush as a scapegoat for their own actions.
Bill Clinton fully supported the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
So did every Democrat who voted yes on the Joint Resolution.
As the 2004 election approached they changed their minds, in hindsight but after a mission always sold as preemptive.
I've never heard an anti-war argument that was not built upon ignorance, willful or otherwise. Supporting the troops means supporting their mission and not playing politics trying to unseat their CinC.
continued: now do u think were gonna go and shoot nukes at any county we have a war with well no because we have been in 5 major conflicts (not counting the like 10 minor conflicts we have been in) since we invited the bomb and never droped it, it is only to be used if the other person uses it first or we think there going to,
the reason its okay for us to have nukes Is because we use them as a deterrent agenst attack. Were not going to use them for soul destive reason to take over a country.
They are a defencive weapon for us not like the iraqies they would use them as an offecive weapon
to destory whole amys and cities so that no other county in there region could compete with them because they would know that the iraqies or who ever else has WMD could whip them out in the blink of an eye
Liberals in both parties..the politically correct have led us astray...time to take back our country for the constitution haters..the PC, the socialists...Tea Party Patriots UNITE! 2010 at the ballot box, the revolution begins!
The Iraq WMD fiction was maintained in order to maintain trade sanctions indefinitely. Had Iraq been certified as WMD-free, the UNSC resolution would have ended the sanctions. The Israel lobby opposed this and as Clinton did not want to run afoul of that lobby, the fiction was maintained. In August 1995, the world found out conclusively that Iraq had no WMD capability but this was suppressed. Newsweek in Feb 2003 reported that this was so.
are you suggesting that a oligarch like Rockafeller is trustworthy? Or that Iraq had WMD's (that somehow vanished)? Or that we should believe anything someone says because apparently it came from the CIA?
He did. The trouble was bush said he wanted proof there where no WMD's in Iraq, which of corse is impossible. The weapons inspectors where thrown out apparently because Saddam thought they where really collecting intelligence for an American invasion (Imagine that!) they where then allowed back in a week or so later but Bush had no intention of negociating.
After all why negociate when you can just send in troups to take all the risk and he become the strong warrior-hero Americans adore.
your an idiot there were and still are wmds being disposed of .....Chemical Weapons are WMDs and there are warehouses full of it there that we are disposing of still today.....so do your research there bro
1. America has a wacking great statue dedicated to liberty, you might even recognise it. If you think it's a disorder you're not an American.
2. The weapons inspectors where LOOKING for WMDs. I can't believe you thought it was a good idea to even open your mouth - even your plutocrat Bush admitted they found no WMD's in Iraq.
I'm guessing you watch fox news - that's the only explaination for your shocking ignorance.
the term Liberalism has been hijacked by leftist fascists. Today, Liberalism=Progressives=Fascist jacks-es. No, I don't watch fox news, it's the CNN of 10 years ago, drifting left. I just pay attention, and remember/save news. How long have you been paying attention to Iraq? Do you remember that there was a war there almost 20 years ago? Do you remember the criticisms leftists used to make? That we gave Saddam WMDs? Now he never had them? Do you smoke pot?
Do you know what Fascism is? Don't look it up on wikipedia, and don't trust your Marxist professor, use a legitimate source. In your statement you said "Rice, Cheny ,Powell ... said Saddam was no longer a threat." I would have thought you didn't trust them? WMD's ... in 98 Clinton instigated "Operation Desert Fox", do you know why? In addition, in the long run up to the latest Iraq invasion, WMDs were moved to Syria. Did you notice Iraq is fine now after the election?
WTF so am I Liberal, Marxist or Fascist now ... I'm loosing track ... perhaps you think marxism, fascism and liberal"ism" are the same thing? ROFL
No, I don't trust any American politician except perhaps Eisenhower.
So while Saddam was the very definition of a paranoid control freak he felt comfortable handing over his arsenal of WMD's to his enemies in Syria? I suppose Saddam was a Nazi, marxist, leftie too?!
when was the last Iraq war protest? Did 'We are the World 25' discuss Iraq? It would have if Bush were president at the time. The point is you mentioned a 'military industrial complex', and that you trust Eisenhower. At least we agree on that. But with the Iraq war 2, the arguments the media used against it were all crap. Which makes me suspicious that the they were in on it. And remember, both Clintons, Feinstein, Gore, Kerry etc. supported removing Saddam until the 2004 election....
anyway, if you liked Eisenhower I wouldn't think you would be a Fascist or a Marxist. So though it seems we disagree on the particulars of the Iraq situation, we'd probably be in agreement on more than it seems.
@joejohnson043 Inspectors were inspecting whether there were or not any:) and last time before invasion they could not find any. Bush logic was guilty until proven innocent, which reminds me of some totalitarian regime which defined US as its ideological nemesis. (and no, other side does not mean good in any way, it is just exactly opposite. ) Saddams WMD was destroyed by Saddam after first gulf war. In fact, he was only guy in area without any potential to build. But Bush and his inteligence...
@Derealmist it comes down to this; there was a peace treaty that stipulated documented destruction of weapons. Saddam played games, obfuscated etc., so wham! That's what happens. You can argue it wasn't worth it to attack him again, or it wasn't wise etc.; but you cannot say Saddam never had WMD's. If we had a REAL media they would have focused on the real issues not the fake.
@Ac220404 Actually read UNSCR 1441, it stated that "comply fully with this resolution and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA".
But by 1.27.03., Hans Blix said to the UNSC said that Iraq was not fully and immediate complying. By March 2003, while Iraq was cooperating, it was not "immediate and unconditional". This means Iraq was not in compliance. Give the inspectors more times mean that Iraq would screw around even more.
@Ac220404 After the 1991 Gulf War as part of a ceasefire agreement, Iraq agreed to the UNSCR 687 that they have to destroy their WMDs programs under UN inspectors control or else we will force you too by any means necessary. Then throughout the 90s, 13 additional resolutions (699, 707, 715, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205, 1284) were passed by UNSC that Iraq was failing to comply with the UNSCRs and UN inspectors. Iraq kept on kicking them inspectors out many times.
@joejohnson043 this is true, clinton did say this, so when people say bush started this with iraq thats wrong, bush wasnt the only person saying he had wmd, clinton said it to
@TheMattd546 and you'll notice Obama is still there, and in Afghanistan, AND started a war with Libya, and there are no anti-war protests, neither were there any when Clinton bombed Bosnia and Serbia.
Which tells me at least one thing, hollywood's 'anti-war protests' over Iraq were bulls#$% !
@joejohnson043 right! nice at lest someone gets it lol, and dont forget clinton going into iraq, for what to nothing, its not like they got saddam, at least bush went there and got saddam out, clinton went in drops a ton of bombs and just packed up and left without getting saddam, at least get him u know, yeah i dont see any stupid conspiracy idoits talking about clinton or obama, just bush, so weird
Clinton was very intelligent when it came to foreign policy,I find it ironic the republicans opposed this action when it occured in 1998 in direct response to an acton, but supported it under Bush's administration even without a SIGNIFICANT provocation and while we were trying to fight another war in another country, much more essential to our security.
I do not find it ironic at all that Bush never said "no" to one Repub bill -perhaps a trade off? It makes you wonder while we're in the worse economic crisis in 80 yrs because of that idiot' spending. Palin received millions for "the study of crab mating habits?" WTF? Sure, go ahead & kill innocent people while I line my pocket. Look @ their radicalism now? When is America going to wake up???
An 8.1% economy vs 20.8% Carter left is WORSE? Y? Explain
Lie: Fed debt=econ, even still
Reasons Bush debt: 9/11, Cali Wildfires, Katrina (Dems spent fed levy repair $ on marina 4 cruise ships, didn't evacuate, FEMA is NOT a 1st responder),
You're numbers are wrong. Carter went into office w/recession on the horizon-yet his highest unemployment was under 8% while Reagan's was 10% his 2nd term -the highest since the depression. Most of Bush' debt came from a war of choice which he has been borrowing $356M a day for nearly 6 yrs -and he didn't even BOTHER PUTTING IT INTO BUDGET! Wow, figure it out. Ridiculous tax cuts to the wealthy & no oversight on the world' financial system -he is a complete ass
Clinton's Comptroller General, head of the GAO, his #'s also correct
UR the one who cant substantiate #'s, refute the Dem Comptroller General, show Dem Socialist progs arent Madoff style Ponzi schemes, or back partisan bs about the worst economy since the depression. You're a total partisan lout. Now you flat out lie Re: unemployment in Reagan's 2nd term
Proof: Unemployment 1985: 7.19% DECLINED every yr til 1988@5.49% source dol*gov (*=.)
Bush didnt veto rep bills, how many dem bills did Clinton veto? Carter? Obama? Politics r partisan. Need I tell you that? Just look at you 20.8% is worse than 8.1%, 7.8%=fantastic, 8.1%=worse than depression
Clinton had a tech boom (bubble actually) w brought Tn's in foreign investments, housing bubble, artificially low interest r8s, & low oil costs
He repealed Glass-Steagl, brought $2.1 Bn lawsuit forcing banks to lower lending stds, FNMA securitization, NAFTA, &baln budg bc Newt made him
Republicans have controlled Congress since '94, so they blocked every good thing Clinton tried to do -what he passed Bush reversed such as the clean air act -now we have no clean water! Unemployment is now 8.5% but the mess we're seeing now has been in the making for 8 yrs by a Republican president. The birds have come home to roost -half of the country wanted him in & they got him. Too bad the other half of us must suffer because of it.
Dont get me wrong, I disagree with many of clintons actions regarding other of his ideas, but I firmly believe this was the appropriate action to take as during the month before he violated every UN sanction and removed weapons inspectors. This was a direct response and NOT an pre-emptive invasion and full occupation which opposed the Powell Doctrine and was carried through even when inspecters were allowed inside the country just prior to the war. If anything I said was wrong please correct me
I may be wrong, but im pretty sure that the congressional investgation into the weapons of mass destructon claims, concluded that ANY weapons saddam posessed that could have been functional were destroyed, by THIS exact military operation, and that Saddam in interrogation understood the UN would use airstrikes to disarm him, so he wouldnt build them until the sanctions were removed.
Clinton & other Dems were correct to have said during 1998 that Saddam had WMDs. He did, & Clintons efforts to destroy all of them were nearing successful completion just about then. We know Bush was aware in '01that Saddam then had no WMD capability because 2 of his top officials said so. It's true gullible Dems were caught up in the Bush' post-9/11 WMD lies but neither Clinton nor Congressional Dems lied us into the invasion of Iraq. And they didnt pull the trigger -Cheney & Bush did.
If there were gaps in Iraqi WMD intelligence, it is a DIRECT RESULT of Clinton's bungling
Saddam routinely defied UN inspection by denying access to WMD sites. Clinton & UN passed 19 impotent resolutions. CLINTON then WITHDREW the inspectors to conduct bombing
After MONTHS of TOTAL inaction & with no new provocation, Clinton suddenly launched Operation Desert Fox the night of the House impeachment hearing trying to stop the impeachment claiming it could not be conducted "during a time of war"
I disagree -when Clinton struck in the 90s there were weapons but these were destroyed. Clinton, as well as many others, publicly stated Hussein was no longer a threat. Regardless of your argument, you miss the most important fact -there were no WMD as Clinton and the others continuously argued. We declared war on an innocent country based upon a cherry picked CIA report Congress never bothered to read.
Because u r invested in your politics, u ignore completely that Clinton wagged the dog, played politics with Iraq, radically slashed CIA intelligence budget, ordered Jamie Gorelick to build a wall SPECIFICALY 2prevent the FBI & CIA from sharing intelligence, & PERSONALLY ended WMD inspections
Recognize its ONLY because they r Dems that u give them a pass
That Reagan armed Hussein is just another example of Democrats playing politics with Foreign Policy & our National Security. Its a LIE
I'm not going to continue to argue -research! This country has fallen a part due to Bush and his failed policies. If it makes you sleep better at night to pass the buck to someone else -more power to you!
Everything they touch such as the surge in Iraq you mean? The TRUTH you back away from is that Dems made Iraq FAR more costly than it ever needed to be & did so to win an election
US did not ARM Iraq or give WMDs. We gave them financial support against Iran - the right thing to do
Iran is now preparing to vaporize Israel under the watchful eye or Kenyan B.O. Hussein, who even now is dismantling our missile defense system as we speak.
Obama-worst qualities of dbl digit Jimmy Carter & FDR
Yes the surge failed because the peace the 30,000 additional troops were to bring for the Iraqis to form their own government, legislation & secure their country NEVER HAPPENED. Wouldn't you call that a failure? You're wrong -US gave arms to Hussein to fight Iran -he used them on the Kurds! Also sold them to Iran contra which is against our laws. Who do you think trained Bin Laden??
5 troops were killed last week -many people die & are counted every night -safe? The surge was a failure -most know this. 30,000 additional troops brought peace (success) but it was for the Iraqi people to form their gov & secure their country (failure). Figure it out what was the objective out of the to for the surge in the first place. Laden was trained by the U.S. war experts to fight the Russians in Afghanistan in the 80s -look it up
What about Bush being in Afghan-having Laden-then telling the Taliban (who would have been fighting) to deal with him? Then Bush decides to forget about Laden because he wanted easy access to the oil in Iraq. There's zero excuse not to know this by now. 1.2M Iraqis dead, our troops/coalition in harms way, 4M Iraqis displaced -a country in ruin and for what??!!
Bush didn't catch OBL in Afganistan, nor did he give him2 the Taliban (who we're fighting), and order them (who are fighting us) to let him go (in Afganistan) 4 access to oil (in Iraq)
That doesnt even make sense. Where on earth are you getting that information?
Your #'s are debatable (wiki Iraq casualties) & immaterial anyway because it strains credulity that you care about Iraqis (most soft targets killed by AQ in Iraq 4US Liberal consumption), nor haveUdone ANYTHING to help veterans
It was the influence of US oil companies that the Bush admin initially blocked intelligence agencies' investigations on terrorism while it bargained w/the Taliban on the delivery of Laden in exchange for political recognition & economic aid. This is why O'Neil (FBI) resigned. I remember it. Also the border w/ Pakistan was the key to catch Laden but Bush paid no attention to it -He had several golden opportunities to catch Laden in Tora Bora -it's a fact.
No one said he caught Laden -that's obvious but you must ask yourself why Bush turned his attention from Laden to Iraq when they had nothing to do w/9-11. Oil Corps were in oil deals w/Taliban before 9/11. I've researched info since day 1 & IF Americans knew everything the Bush admin has done they would be demanding they be prosecuted or worse. Spain has already charged them!! More countries will most likely come forward while we let those bastards just walk away -
Pipeline conspiracy? Islam & Opium dealers=no compunction against trading oil. Far cheaper, no bloodshed, just 2pay them 4 a pipeline. Chief exports-pelts, rugs, nuts. How expensive could it be?
9/11-NOT an inside job. 2 planes really DID hit WTC. CIA operatives dont blow themselves up 4 Bush, 4oil, or go2 heaven 4 killing innocent civilians. Islamic terrorists do
mredstriumpth: I'm talking about Iraq not Afghanistan. So because you either did not read my posts or totally didn't understand it, what you wrote means nothing @ the end of the day.
US Oil corps were in deals with Taliban. That's a fact. However it's Iraqi oil that is being stolen. And I believe it came out that Taliban was operating in Iraq in '04. They all went back to Afghan when Bush carelessly deployed troops to attack Iraq.
Maybe that was just a typo like your comments about unemployment during Reagan's 2nd term?
Or your "worst economy in 80 years" comment that you've been conspicusly mum on providing details4?
Or your silence on Barn Frank stopping FNMA regulation? Or how FICA would have prevented the banking crisis?
Simply claiming someone else's #'s R wrong without explaining why the US Department of Labor or Clinton's Comptroller General got things so wrong doesn't lend much credence to your arguments
Lastly, the numbers I gave are actually higher. The journalist who threw his shoes @ Bush counted civilian deaths-think about that. In '06 the number of dead was est @ 600k. Wiki? Are you serious? Read: " Iraq Body Count" & The Lancet. You don't know what I've done for veterans & giving you facts about a corrupt admin is info you should already know. You get off on murdering innocent women/kids for oil? There were no WMD & it wasn't about liberating -we're occupiers!! Get your facts straight
Progressives draw feet on every fish they see, rejoice in abortion, Diefy Charles "Survival of the Fittest" Darwin, then say their command & control policies R 2save the world. True aim is POWER. Enslaved dependency
They start wars & 'give peace a chance' in the fall of Vietnam, Khmer Rouge, Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia, & try 2do in Iraq, chanting 'love' as the bodies stack
Evil US 'occupation'-what stopped war & constant bloodshed of Europe from the Fall of Rome 476AD till mid 20th cent
10 yrs ago -that's a lot of time that's passed. How anyone can compare Clinton to Bush is beyond reality. When your country is in it's worse economic crisis in over 80 yrs, the national debt is over $10Tn & deficit is $1.7Tn, 2 wars, debts to China, torture, defecating on the constitution, illegally firing attorneys, outing CIA agents, etc...you need to worry about what Bush has done not Clinton. Obama has inherited the mess to clean up -Dems always do because history does not lie.
Bush LEGALLY fired 8 US attorneys, Clinton fired 93! Some ACTIVELY INVESTIGATING HIS ADMINISTRATION
Pillow fights/Frat pranks declared "torture" by Dems for political propaganda during a war, terrorists given rights of citizens, Al Queda released 2attack US
US $53Tn debt for Democrat Ponzi schemes SS, Medicare, Medicaid ->per US worker = $415,000 (source liberal film IOUSA)
Even @$415K debt / worker, Dems say govt needs to spend MORE 2provide healthcare - when NO1 is denied HC now!
A president can do so but the question is did Gonzalez do it? That's where it's illegal. The torture issue is a fact in which the world is aware. This is being investigated.
You have no clue to what you're talking about. That $53Tn is no where near the truth - it's not even worth discussing. The future debt of the country depends on how much it will take to clear the colossal debt & many messes made by the Bush admin. It's crawling out of a hole. 43M Americans are without healthcare.
I'm done arguing, but that $53 Trillion (as of 2007) is from David Walker, Comptroller General of USA, the nation's top accountant,& head of the GAO - government accountability Office (1998-2008)
He's a Clinton Appointee. If those credentials dont impress u, I dont know what 2say
The film is IOUSA, it's full of liberal distortions, but it addresses an important issue our country will be facing
/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo
Ignore it like a lib, but j like AlQ, it wont be ignoring u
Why you should appologize is4 rejecting the govt's top accountant simply because you dont like what he has to say
FACT-your healthcare provider of choice is $53Tn in debt (2007) thanks to Democrat-Madoff-Pyramid schemes; new admin's response is2 QUADRUPLE budget debt in just 4 months, nationalize economy, repeal welfare reform, & incr spending on EVERYTHING but missile defense
Clinton repealed Glass-Steagle, CRA O&Acorn Compelled bad loans, B Frank derailed FNMA regulation, gave 2.5Tn 2WS
Result: Saddam vows he will not only continue2 defy UN inspection, but now REFUSES to allow their return
Having successfully "addressed" the WMD inspection issue, Clinton declared Desert Fox a "success", ending operations Dec. 19th, the very day he had been impeached
Recall months earlier, Operation Infinite Reach:
Clinton, acting on what later turned out 2B ZERO evidence, attacked a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant, just coincidentally preempted coverage of Monica's Congressional Testimony
Dems such as yourself characterize this as acting with honesty and integrity, & w 20/20 hindsight say we should take Saddam at his word. "There were never WMDs"
Still without the benefit of the Democrat's (who gave us Vietnam-58,159 dead, 2K missing 303,635 wounded) perfect 20/20 hindsight, one has to wonder WHY Saddam continued to defy the UN
Why did he give up his life, his power, & the lives of his sons to hide in a cave & die on the end of a rope 4 non-existant WMDs? Why did he CHOOSE war?
Dems - even Hillary Clinton - Senator & wife of a former Pres, says they were confused, charmed,misled by Bush. How believable is that??
What they never say is that THANKS TO CLINTON, who pursued his PERSONAL agenda at the expense of the country, no1 KNEW *at the time*
Either we trust Saddam's word - leaving USA & the MidE@ risk - or turn over that terrorist sponsoring (not 911, but TRUE) militarily expansionist murderous rock & act on the blatant & continuous violation of the GW1 CEASE FIRE
All were mislead by Bush not just H. Clinton. However I blame them as well for not reading the actual CIA report. Also she should have apologized for her part because I think it hurt her in the primaries. Also as far as weapons it was Reagan who sold weapons to Hussein as well as Iran. This is how we knew they had them - It's careless.
If Reagan (America) armed Saddam, I defy you to explain why Saddam's government was armed with RUSSIAN T-82 tanks, RUSSIAN RPGs, RUSSIAN AK-47s, RUSSIAN mines, RUSSIAN planes, RUSSIAN missiles, RUSSIAN artilery, RUSSIAN chemical weapons, & have absolutely NO American weapons
It is only that u r invested in your polics & against Repubs that an otherwise intelligent person such as yourself overlooks such an OBVIOUS fact.
CIA reports arent reliable if the CIA & UN inspections are not ALLOWED
Clinton did not invade Iraq & throw the US into a ridiculous, endless, bloody quagmire. He managed to disarm Hussein w/out taking this disastrous step. There is evidence that the Bush administration knew this:He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction." Colin Powell He (Saddam) does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt. Condoleezza Rice
wow, I'm a conservative and even I didn't know this. I been living with elitist teachers and "friends" in Taxachusetts for too long... anyways, Kerry, Biden, and Hillary ALL VOTED FOR THE WAR!!! they then spoke out against it when it looked like it could easily be criticized....
We easily couldve mantained their inability to build a strong force without costing thousands of lives and over 500 Billion dollars of foreign investments. I know it can be hard for some other people to wrap their heads around but sometimes threatening other nations directly whether it be Clinton or Bush causes people to become defensive, thus causing much more problems then there ever was to begin with.
In addition this was a 4 day AIR CAMPAIGN aimed at reducing the effectiveness of Saddam to produce weapons of mass destruction, costing MUCH less casualties, and colateral damage. This came directly following his violating the weapons inspections and disrupting them. Most of the weapons and his ability to make those weapons were destroyed in this campaign according to the congresssional report on the Iraq War.
There are dozens of brutal dictators, that havent ever been removed, now I for one dont think sitting back and watching an active genocide in Darfur is moral for the Bush administration, if their willing to lie about ending what was an inactive weapons program, and major war crimes 20 years ago and suspected of occuring now. Of course he was evil, no question, but we need to also look after ourselves, and whether our actions are in the best interest of our economy, military, and fellow nations
no one question's whether saddam HAD wmds, or that hes an evil man... but as to whether he was in development of them at the time we invaded, and we have the responsibility of removing every dictator from power when its truely the citizens responsibilty to overthrow a government.
Something similar happened to me, but in a realtionship way. There was a big problem and I got involved, which made things a whole lot worse. The issue hasn't been solved eversince. I mean if it doesn't concern you even if you are his best friend, why go and get involved to make things worse? I mean in my case, I got involved with two people who were stupid and emotional and were stubborn to what I wanted them to do.
You get involved because it's the right thing to do! If the US stayed out of WW1 and WW2, what do you think the world would be like today? Every Jewish person extinct, and all of the European culture destroyed by Hitler? Your logic does not hold up! The fact that you can't comprehend what this means shows me exactly how clueless you are! Using your logic, the world would have been dominated by Hitler, and we would all be speaking German and driving Volkswagons! LMFAO (tool)
I knew this, but not just Clinton said it. So did Nancy Pelosi, Gore, Kerry, Hillary and others all of them said Bush Lied. If Bush wouldn't have invaded Iraq, and Suddam lopped a bomb over here, they would have said " why didn't Bush do something. Everyone knew he had the WMDs. Bush should have did something. Bush was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. All of these democrats lied, not Bush. Thats another reason i have always been a republican.
@sidguill of course he had wmds because he been using them for years. how wierd is it for them to automatically disappear. of course he hid them someplace else, why not?. i told my anti-bush liberal teacher this and she just blew me off and threw a hippie fit. she knows i was right, dems are retards
this just shows that it doesnt matter who is in office.. the people behind the scenes pulling the strings are the same.. THE MILITARY INDUSTIAL COMPLEX ... google it..
Suspicions were always there. But Hans Blix was told to call of his search, and the Republicans, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc, chose to go in based on false documents.
So does showing Clinton here make it any better for Bush and the gang? HELL NO !
I gotta confess, this video makes a very important point, that EVERYONE thought Sadaam had WMDs, everyone. Democrats simply differed with the option to invade, agreeing with earlier Bush (HW) and earlier Cheney.
Of course, invasion is a pretty gaping difference, isn't it?
Any info avail. about Iraq's accurate claim that Kuwait violated their sovereignty by diagonal drilling? Meaning Iraq's 90 invasion was VALID?! Freaky to realize it.
They are not criminals, they are treated like one because Bush, Al Gore and Bush's father made him like that by provoking him and his regime. The terrorists who did the 9/11 attack are the real terrorists.
Really? Did Bush build the rape rooms? Did he gas the Kurds in the North? Did he manufacture the mass graves where over 300,000 Iraqi civilians were found murdered? Are you aware that Abu Grab was a slaughterhouse before the US Invaded, where over 100 civilians were put to death weekly? I think you need to pull your head out of your ass.
in power, so I would have to say to all American people who hate Saddam Hussein, Good Job for winning with the government and start this war for no reason. Congratulations for overthrowing a government who was only trying to maintain peace, but in a bad way and by using his bad way as an excuse to destory his destiny and the entire country. Good job and "Just" Good job.
only made it worse by setting an embargo to his country, constantly bombing his civilans and then did a complete invasion in 2003 just to get rid of a powerful army a little less powerful than us. The biggest problem to all of this is that there are so many people have good/bad opinions and politicans like you who claim that Saddam is a threat and support having a war with him want the war, which eventually got what the country doesn't deserve and only increased terrorism since saddam isn't
what goes on is alright. Who cares if Iraq invades Kuwait, the fact that they already DID in 1990, if we just focused on supporting Saddam Hussein and not worried about what he did, then I bet you the place would be much more peaceful. I know how bad he was but since he already has power, let him have power, besides what is it that people have so much against him other than himself giving out limited freedom? If we ONLY supported him, then he would regret everything he did in the past, but we
How am I so uneducated? If we didn't get involved with Saddam, do you think he will choose to invade the United States? NO, he doesn't have power to do that, so why do we care for what he does? If we supported him without bothering for what he does, then obviously he is not going to attack the US for no reason. Come on, its common sense and you don't need a rocket scientist to ask weather peace is better than a war. I am not a psychic and uneducated either.
He invaded Kuwait and launched Scud Missles at Israel. Those are our allies in the area. If we chose to only get involved in a war when an enemy directly threatened to invade the US, then we would have never interveined in WW1 or WW2, and the world would be in far worse shape than it is today. Should we have just let Hitler slaughter every Jew on the planet and take over Europe?
How is it our business? Let me simplify things for you! Say you are the toughest kid on your block(I know it's a stretch, but bear with me)Then all of a sudden a kid moves in and beats the shit out of your best friend. Then he throws a rock through the window of another one of your friends. Then he tries stealing your best friend's bike. Should you sit back and do nothing because he hasnt challenged you?I mean, your logic is asinine! You're trying to segregate us from everyone else in the world!
AlpondrickTheGreat, All I have to say is "Thank You" for supporting America into making a big mistake, by going into Iraq and by starting a war with Saddam. You are taking the wrong with everything I say. Helping victims is 'bad', IF it involves war and fighting, especially when it doesn't concern us. Leaving friends to perish is not OK, but if its perished like all other countries were in history, THEN its OK. I never said giving more strength to the obvious abuser is alright, I said ignoring
America thinks they are the boss over every other country. They want to be the only countries to have WMD's and torchure other countries that do. If the US only never shown thenselves enemies against Saddam Hussein, maybe they wouldn't be so concerned. America going into war with Iraq for this stupid reason is completely stupid for the Americans and one day, they will suffer the same wrath, not the civilians, but the governments.
many other countries have nuclear tech and we don't push being their boss.
do you think criminals should be free to commit crimes?
threat to the globe and our livlihood is severe even prior to any kuwait invasion.
you are severely deluded because of lack of facts that would install thanks to this type of heroic efforts to rid evil threats that take the freedoms many die for.
huge exaggerations 'torture, wmd's in every other country, same wrath'
Don't You Understand. We Did NOT do something heroic. We made the biggest mistake and you in DENAIAL WITH THE FACT THAT WE DID. OPEN YOUR EYES AND STOP BEING STUBBORN, we destoryed a country just for one man, we have increased terrorism, we messed up Americas reputation, all because faggots like you who have a LACK of understanding would support bad things happening on earth, just for the US to police the world. Copying what Saddam did is completely wrong and illegal and you need to get that.
'faggots' are the wusses that do nothing to take out just 'one man' that plans to take many and already has.
'copying saddam'. you sure make many exaggerated claims with no relevance nor explanation of any of your slanderous babble of selfish unthankful mindset giving no thought to my previous statements but merely dodging them with more ridiculous bipolarism.
explain 'copying saddam' or any of the other questions i asked previously. can't do it w/o contradicting yourself?
i did not contradict myself. i CAN explain if youtube didn't have the annoying comment limit. do do think america did a good job by bombing buildings which can never be recreated? do you think that bombing innocent people just for the overthrow of saddam is a heroic thing? just think of what america did to the country before looking at the political views. It doesn't matter weather they make are trying to make it a better country or not. They started a war which is not a wise solution.
The difference between Clinton's "lies" and Bush's lies is that, after all, with Clinton the U.S. prospered. With Bush, the U.S. went straight to hell. After 8 years, you can't say that Clinton was just lucky, or that Bush was just unlucky. Clinton was pretty darn good president. Bush is not half the president Clinton was.
omg you retard americans you are in your own god damn world you are making the world red on blood and you cant get the basic you cote 2 times bush? the worst you could ever vote the think is that you are always going 2 be papets and never wake up
Now reading back on history and remembering what was going down, remember the majority in the Congress was the Republicans from 1996 on. From what I have read the Repubs didn't take Clinton seriously because of the Lewinsky scandel. It wasn't until 9/11 that they took it seriously. You can't go to war without Congesses approval! Of course he had to ask for the Republicans approval.
all u people on this channel are fuckin idiots. especially the moron that posted it. keep drinking your punch and keep that george bush dick up your white ass. lmfao. america is going down in flames and u crackers have yourselves to blame for it. LOL.
The war is unnessesary, America should have let Saddam do what he wanted and taken action if he was going to interfere with American lives. They should have allied up with Saddam Hussein instead of going to war with him, overthrowing him and allowing the country to be corrupt with freedom and terrorism.
You forgot that Iraq invaded Kuwait. Saddam went after the US as revenge, for us kicking him out of there. Saddam used his money and trained terrorist to get his revenge.
Exactly. The Americans should have never gone and defeated Saddam from going into Kuwait. The Americans should have not cared and only maintained peace between all the countries in the middle east, including Saddam Hussein. I did not forget the Persian Gulf War. I think the Americans made the most foolish mistake when they fought against Saddam Hussein just because they believe that stopping him would bring peace to the middle east. Guess What? Wrong, that only made the mideast more vulnerable.
This has been flagged as spam show
Gratifying to see Obama described as an unlikely president? Is it not evident to Obama backers they & other Dem's elected a inexerienced nonentity obscure professor with no publications? A man without military, economic, financial, business, foreign policy, or executive experience, gifted with a talent for self-promotion & vapid slogans like change. This pathetic creature is expected to lead, inspire,& direct us out of Recession, unite the nation, strengthen it internationallly?
onstageagain 4 months ago
I can give science source that Saddam still tried to get nuclear enrichment technology in 1996. Germany even charged somebody for treason because of it.
Google: Iraq's Acquisition of Gas Centrifuge Technology
niemand2099 6 months ago
you can read the transcipts of Clinton's speech on CNN etc. IT's ON RECORD.
Good video
niemand2099 6 months ago
whether or not sadaam had "wmd's" he murdered his people by the hundreds of thousands. its funny how you life loving democrats look right past the mass graves and blame bush for all the problems in the mid east. if you hate the usa, you obviously hate yourself.
nintruendo 9 months ago
Iraq never had WMD weapons, it was just a game since 1980, and they still playing it America,Isreal,and Iran,America told Saddam to start the war against Iran in 1980 and in 3 days they will call VITO,but actually they didn't and they war continued till 1988 plus,Iraq destroyed Iran and Iran Requested the ceasefire, so of course AMERICA didn't like that,so they had to make and Iraq kuwit war was planned from america too because of the oilAmerica is controlling the world,but god is alive..
Shibel5663432 10 months ago
@Shibel5663432 finally somebody gets it on how the game is played.
WayneAndSouljaSucks 10 months ago
@Shibel5663432 iraq did use wmd on his own people, and told all the country's next to him that he would use it on them, thats true, now if he had no wmd then he shouldnt have said that, saddam was a bad,crazy person
TheMattd546 4 months ago
@Shibel5663432 Iraq didn't not use WMD against the north , Iran Did but Isreal and the US blamed Iraq dipshit
Shibel5663432 4 months ago
Terribly Bias: The clinton administration stated Iraq was no longer a threat to George Bush when he got into office.
Colin Powell during an interview in 2002 whilst in Egypt claimed Saddam was no longer a threat to it's neighbors nor possessed WMDs.
2 reports by the Penatgon's DIA state no solid evidence of Iraq WMD's existed in 2 reports in 2002. One in September, One in November.
Bush knew no WMD's existed. He still invaded. The situation changed bewteen 1998 and 2003.
brokenjustice 11 months ago
@brokenjustice "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." Former President Clinton During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live" July 22, 2003
BoogieWithStew 10 months ago
@BoogieWithStew Outgoing Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, informed incoming President George Bush in January of 2000: “Iraq no longer poses a military threat to its neighbors.”
Type that quote into google, its a popular one. And it's used in Oil power and empire, Larry Everest's book.
Although it doesnt prove the case, Bill Clinton has been known to lie to the public with Monica Lewinski. The 2003 war was a continuation of Clinton's sanction policy. He probably supported the war.
brokenjustice 10 months ago
@brokenjustice “Iraq no longer poses a military threat to its neighbors.” Neighbors were not the primary concern, built rather providing WMD to terrorists. See countless Democrats make this claim, long before Bush stepped into the White House:
freedomagenda DOT c o m / iraq / wmd_quotes.html
BoogieWithStew 10 months ago
@BoogieWithStew Which terrorist groups?
brokenjustice 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brokenjustice As stated, view the link below to see countless Democrats make this claim, long before Bush stepped into the White House:
freedomagenda DOT c o m / iraq / wmd_quotes.html
BoogieWithStew 10 months ago
@blackjerryboymetal no, they were ALLOWED by the US, we provided the funding for the weapons, after the Shah of Iran was overthrown, then turned our backs on the Kurds when they got slaughtered.
Ac220404 1 year ago
@blackjerryboymetal Then...that just proves The republicans block any action by a democrat even if they think it could help the country putting us at risk.
Ac220404 1 year ago
@blackjerryboymetal and congress was under republican contol in 98'. So if Clinton wanted to invade (as you say he did, but he didnt) he couldnt because the republicans blocked it. Second, these were strategic airstrikes, not a full fucking invasion. The technology we have today, made it impossible for Saddam to create weapons. he said so himself. He said he intended to mnake wmd's again, but the airstrikes clinton used made him want to wait so long as the sanctions were in place.
Ac220404 1 year ago
I have no doubt Saddam HAD wmds of minimal damage, but its been conlcuded and stated by saddam himself, that he chose not to keep building them after these airstrikes because he could not so loong as the sanctions were in place. He didnt invade with a quarter million troops. 4,500 didnt die and 40,000 injured. He launched strategic strikes IN RESPONSE to an action as opposed to preemptively. If we didnt find wmd's it probably was because of these airstrikes.
Ac220404 1 year ago
@Ac220404 Great that you trust a loony dictator's word. How many died at Halabja?
BoogieWithStew 10 months ago
@BoogieWithStew why would i trust his words? Its only that his words turned out to be right (there were no significant weapons), and we turned out to be wrong. (Well lying in my opinion). If you can launch cruise missiles and prevent a guy from gaining weapons programs instead of full scale invading, why would you spend 600 billion dollars, 4,500 dead soldiers and over total 1 million dead, after all's said and done to "bring democracy" to a place thats only strategic interest was oil.
Ac220404 9 months ago
@Ac220404 Don't cruise missiles kill people? As noted earlier, President Clinton stated it was "incontestable" that Saddam had WMD when GWB took office in 2001. Bringing democracy to other nations has always been a long-term strategic objective of the United States -- not out of altruism, but because modern and free peoples typically do not threaten other nations.
BoogieWithStew 9 months ago
@Ac220404 As for "oil," wars have been fought over natural resources for many centuries. But Saddam was not removed to access oil, as it would have been far easier and cheaper to simply lift sanctions. You also overlook the cost of maintaining the status quo by keeping Saddam in power -- billions of US dollars every year in-perpetuity, endless mass graves filled with women and children, etc, etc.
BoogieWithStew 9 months ago
When he said WMD's - he meant weapons of minimal damage
darthlogger 1 year ago
@blackjerryboymetal Stop calling people a dummy just because you are a 100 pound loser who can't get a girl friend (I see you in your display pic... what a joke). Stop picking and choosing for one thing. In common knowledge that the US helped install the Ba'ath party and provided Saddam with intel and the weapons he wanted for his war against Iran. That's a fact buddy so get off your ass and do a little research. Study the cold war and the problems in asia minor during the 1980s.
RandomWad 1 year ago
@blackjerryboymetal except for my gov't teacher. she is awesome, she tells you shit straight forward with no bias in it.
Jacoby515 1 year ago
@blackjerryboymetal All those weapons were provided by the US government to the Ba'ath party for the Iraq-Iran war... With your tax dollars. You are idiot.
RandomWad 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
President Clinton warned the nation that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in 1998 and no one not even the democrats at the time disputed that yet in 2003 many of the democrats were saying the exact opposite that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destrction and President Bush had no probable cause for invading Iraq. If that's what they believe then why were they not critizising President Clinton in 1998 as they did President Bush in 2003 and beyond.
Chad3150 1 year ago
President Clinton warned the nation that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in 1998 and no one not even the democrats at the time disputed that yet in 2003 many of the democrats were saying the exact opposite that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destrction and President Bush had no probable cause for invading Iraq. If that's what they believe then why were they not critizising President Clinton in 1998 as they did President Bush in 2003 and beyond.
Chad3150 1 year ago
This is complete bullshit based on the fake right left paradigm. Most people I talk to are sick of it we dont care weather you are a dem or rep. your all playin the same shit. pointing the finger at each other with one hand and propping each other with the other. Its bs and the people arent buying it anymore!
xXTurdSandwitchXx 1 year ago
Clinton, Bush, Obama all lied and people died.
RandomWad 1 year ago
Comment removed
Chad3150 1 year ago
To suggest Democrats, by virtue of their political affilation, don't carry the same human propensity towards violence is specious. People are people. Change must occur at a much more fundamental and basic level than in just the political arena, i.e. in each one of us. That Democrats walk hand in hand with Republicans down a road manifesting violence in its most extreme measure, suggests something much more sinister outside the scope of our voting power-someone else is pulling the the strings.
RUMINIDI 1 year ago
Bill Clinton seems to suffer from memory loss. Doesn't he remember what he said about Iraq when he was the president?
He's now officially a lying piece of shit!
ttiiyy 1 year ago
Things that Democrats rely on: an uninformed public, a forgetful/biased media, and using President George W. Bush as a scapegoat for their own actions.
kyler187 1 year ago
at least clinton just threw missiles at them and said that is that, hell he could have been the one that destroyed them.
elitesack 1 year ago
Bill Clinton fully supported the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
So did every Democrat who voted yes on the Joint Resolution.
As the 2004 election approached they changed their minds, in hindsight but after a mission always sold as preemptive.
I've never heard an anti-war argument that was not built upon ignorance, willful or otherwise. Supporting the troops means supporting their mission and not playing politics trying to unseat their CinC.
batvette 1 year ago
continued: now do u think were gonna go and shoot nukes at any county we have a war with well no because we have been in 5 major conflicts (not counting the like 10 minor conflicts we have been in) since we invited the bomb and never droped it, it is only to be used if the other person uses it first or we think there going to,
marQ941 1 year ago
the reason its okay for us to have nukes Is because we use them as a deterrent agenst attack. Were not going to use them for soul destive reason to take over a country.
They are a defencive weapon for us not like the iraqies they would use them as an offecive weapon
to destory whole amys and cities so that no other county in there region could compete with them because they would know that the iraqies or who ever else has WMD could whip them out in the blink of an eye
marQ941 1 year ago
Liberals in both parties..the politically correct have led us astray...time to take back our country for the constitution haters..the PC, the socialists...Tea Party Patriots UNITE! 2010 at the ballot box, the revolution begins!
jcfan9 2 years ago
The Iraq WMD fiction was maintained in order to maintain trade sanctions indefinitely. Had Iraq been certified as WMD-free, the UNSC resolution would have ended the sanctions. The Israel lobby opposed this and as Clinton did not want to run afoul of that lobby, the fiction was maintained. In August 1995, the world found out conclusively that Iraq had no WMD capability but this was suppressed. Newsweek in Feb 2003 reported that this was so.
lordhighexecutioner 2 years ago
Actually Jay Rockefeller showed Clinton some intellgence made by the CIA that Saddam indeed had WMD's Look it up under World Politics 2008.
SnakeCIA1 2 years ago
are you suggesting that a oligarch like Rockafeller is trustworthy? Or that Iraq had WMD's (that somehow vanished)? Or that we should believe anything someone says because apparently it came from the CIA?
MaxSafeheaD 1 year ago
War Made Easy: How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death
watch?v=KN5vxOw9Elk
America needs to WAKE UP NOW!!
texas224 2 years ago 3
@texas224 or to get fuckloads of oil
deckarx 1 year ago
@deckarx It's funny how I am getting replies that people are missing Bush because he appears on Oprah. I guess they really hate Obama.
texas224 1 year ago
if they had nothing to hide why did Saddam not let the inspectors in for all those years?
xCOMPETITIONx 1 year ago
He did. The trouble was bush said he wanted proof there where no WMD's in Iraq, which of corse is impossible. The weapons inspectors where thrown out apparently because Saddam thought they where really collecting intelligence for an American invasion (Imagine that!) they where then allowed back in a week or so later but Bush had no intention of negociating.
After all why negociate when you can just send in troups to take all the risk and he become the strong warrior-hero Americans adore.
MaxSafeheaD 1 year ago
yes
fads90 2 years ago
What a clever use of Pro-tools to splice together different Clinton speeches into this obvious fraudulent radio broadcast.
"There never were any WMD's".... lol; what the heck were the 'weapons Insectors' inspecting... hahahahahahaha
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder!
joejohnson043 2 years ago 5
if you watch the original video which you can find, there are no splices or edits, he says the exact same thing.
USSSANJACINTO 2 years ago
I know, I was being sarcastic, but I guess I didn't convey it effectively.
joejohnson043 2 years ago
your an idiot there were and still are wmds being disposed of .....Chemical Weapons are WMDs and there are warehouses full of it there that we are disposing of still today.....so do your research there bro
srpine84 2 years ago
lol, perhaps you should learn your own history.
1. America has a wacking great statue dedicated to liberty, you might even recognise it. If you think it's a disorder you're not an American.
2. The weapons inspectors where LOOKING for WMDs. I can't believe you thought it was a good idea to even open your mouth - even your plutocrat Bush admitted they found no WMD's in Iraq.
I'm guessing you watch fox news - that's the only explaination for your shocking ignorance.
MaxSafeheaD 1 year ago
the term Liberalism has been hijacked by leftist fascists. Today, Liberalism=Progressives=Fascist jacks-es. No, I don't watch fox news, it's the CNN of 10 years ago, drifting left. I just pay attention, and remember/save news. How long have you been paying attention to Iraq? Do you remember that there was a war there almost 20 years ago? Do you remember the criticisms leftists used to make? That we gave Saddam WMDs? Now he never had them? Do you smoke pot?
joejohnson043 1 year ago
Fascist left, lol, that's a new one. You're obviously not a political analyst.
A military industrial complex campioned by America, sold all sorts of weapons to Saddam but did he have any after GW1 is THE question.
Codi Rice, Cheny, Powell and others said Saddam no longer any threat. There was no WMDs, that much in now obviously true.
The threat was manufactured to excuse the invasion.
N.B. It's pointless trying to blame me for claims other people made.
Look up the film "why we fight"
MaxSafeheaD 1 year ago
Do you know what Fascism is? Don't look it up on wikipedia, and don't trust your Marxist professor, use a legitimate source. In your statement you said "Rice, Cheny ,Powell ... said Saddam was no longer a threat." I would have thought you didn't trust them? WMD's ... in 98 Clinton instigated "Operation Desert Fox", do you know why? In addition, in the long run up to the latest Iraq invasion, WMDs were moved to Syria. Did you notice Iraq is fine now after the election?
joejohnson043 1 year ago
WTF so am I Liberal, Marxist or Fascist now ... I'm loosing track ... perhaps you think marxism, fascism and liberal"ism" are the same thing? ROFL
No, I don't trust any American politician except perhaps Eisenhower.
So while Saddam was the very definition of a paranoid control freak he felt comfortable handing over his arsenal of WMD's to his enemies in Syria? I suppose Saddam was a Nazi, marxist, leftie too?!
"Iraq is fine"
You haven't got a clue have you.
MaxSafeheaD 1 year ago
when was the last Iraq war protest? Did 'We are the World 25' discuss Iraq? It would have if Bush were president at the time. The point is you mentioned a 'military industrial complex', and that you trust Eisenhower. At least we agree on that. But with the Iraq war 2, the arguments the media used against it were all crap. Which makes me suspicious that the they were in on it. And remember, both Clintons, Feinstein, Gore, Kerry etc. supported removing Saddam until the 2004 election....
joejohnson043 1 year ago
anyway, if you liked Eisenhower I wouldn't think you would be a Fascist or a Marxist. So though it seems we disagree on the particulars of the Iraq situation, we'd probably be in agreement on more than it seems.
joejohnson043 1 year ago
well, that IS a relief!
No, I am not a fascist or a Marxist ;o)
The perticulars of the iraq situation ... I don't know, let's just agree not to trust anything the media or politicians say!
MaxSafeheaD 1 year ago
I completely agree with you on that!
joejohnson043 1 year ago
@joejohnson043 Inspectors were inspecting whether there were or not any:) and last time before invasion they could not find any. Bush logic was guilty until proven innocent, which reminds me of some totalitarian regime which defined US as its ideological nemesis. (and no, other side does not mean good in any way, it is just exactly opposite. ) Saddams WMD was destroyed by Saddam after first gulf war. In fact, he was only guy in area without any potential to build. But Bush and his inteligence...
Derealmist 1 year ago
@Derealmist it comes down to this; there was a peace treaty that stipulated documented destruction of weapons. Saddam played games, obfuscated etc., so wham! That's what happens. You can argue it wasn't worth it to attack him again, or it wasn't wise etc.; but you cannot say Saddam never had WMD's. If we had a REAL media they would have focused on the real issues not the fake.
joejohnson043 1 year ago
@joejohnson043 and the UN concluded there were no weapons found, and that there work wasnt able to be completed.
Conservativism is a long word for idiot! (not all...but most)
Ac220404 9 months ago
@Ac220404 Actually read UNSCR 1441, it stated that "comply fully with this resolution and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA".
But by 1.27.03., Hans Blix said to the UNSC said that Iraq was not fully and immediate complying. By March 2003, while Iraq was cooperating, it was not "immediate and unconditional". This means Iraq was not in compliance. Give the inspectors more times mean that Iraq would screw around even more.
publicmario17 4 months ago
@Ac220404 After the 1991 Gulf War as part of a ceasefire agreement, Iraq agreed to the UNSCR 687 that they have to destroy their WMDs programs under UN inspectors control or else we will force you too by any means necessary. Then throughout the 90s, 13 additional resolutions (699, 707, 715, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205, 1284) were passed by UNSC that Iraq was failing to comply with the UNSCRs and UN inspectors. Iraq kept on kicking them inspectors out many times.
publicmario17 4 months ago
@joejohnson043 this is true, clinton did say this, so when people say bush started this with iraq thats wrong, bush wasnt the only person saying he had wmd, clinton said it to
TheMattd546 4 months ago
@TheMattd546 and you'll notice Obama is still there, and in Afghanistan, AND started a war with Libya, and there are no anti-war protests, neither were there any when Clinton bombed Bosnia and Serbia.
Which tells me at least one thing, hollywood's 'anti-war protests' over Iraq were bulls#$% !
joejohnson043 4 months ago
@joejohnson043 right! nice at lest someone gets it lol, and dont forget clinton going into iraq, for what to nothing, its not like they got saddam, at least bush went there and got saddam out, clinton went in drops a ton of bombs and just packed up and left without getting saddam, at least get him u know, yeah i dont see any stupid conspiracy idoits talking about clinton or obama, just bush, so weird
TheMattd546 4 months ago
This is something that we all know about. Can you say WMD's
edbork1444 2 years ago
i never had sex with that woman, erm, it was all oral
lunafringe10 2 years ago
Clinton was very intelligent when it came to foreign policy,I find it ironic the republicans opposed this action when it occured in 1998 in direct response to an acton, but supported it under Bush's administration even without a SIGNIFICANT provocation and while we were trying to fight another war in another country, much more essential to our security.
accatt2204 2 years ago
I do not find it ironic at all that Bush never said "no" to one Repub bill -perhaps a trade off? It makes you wonder while we're in the worse economic crisis in 80 yrs because of that idiot' spending. Palin received millions for "the study of crab mating habits?" WTF? Sure, go ahead & kill innocent people while I line my pocket. Look @ their radicalism now? When is America going to wake up???
lthom33 2 years ago
Unemployment + Inflation
Carter 1977-80: 13.6, 13.7, 17.1, 20.8 (avg 16.3)
W 2001-8: 7.6, 7.4, 8.3, 8.2, 8.5, 7.9, 7.5, 9.6 (avg 8.1)
Clinton H/L/avg: 9.9/6.1 (avg 7.8)
An 8.1% economy vs 20.8% Carter left is WORSE? Y? Explain
Lie: Fed debt=econ, even still
Reasons Bush debt: 9/11, Cali Wildfires, Katrina (Dems spent fed levy repair $ on marina 4 cruise ships, didn't evacuate, FEMA is NOT a 1st responder),
PDrug plan, 2 wars, TARP1 (Dem housing crisis)
What's Carter's excuse?
mredstriumph 2 years ago
You're numbers are wrong. Carter went into office w/recession on the horizon-yet his highest unemployment was under 8% while Reagan's was 10% his 2nd term -the highest since the depression. Most of Bush' debt came from a war of choice which he has been borrowing $356M a day for nearly 6 yrs -and he didn't even BOTHER PUTTING IT INTO BUDGET! Wow, figure it out. Ridiculous tax cuts to the wealthy & no oversight on the world' financial system -he is a complete ass
lthom33 2 years ago
My #'s are correct miseryindex*us (*=.)
Clinton's Comptroller General, head of the GAO, his #'s also correct
UR the one who cant substantiate #'s, refute the Dem Comptroller General, show Dem Socialist progs arent Madoff style Ponzi schemes, or back partisan bs about the worst economy since the depression. You're a total partisan lout. Now you flat out lie Re: unemployment in Reagan's 2nd term
Proof: Unemployment 1985: 7.19% DECLINED every yr til 1988@5.49% source dol*gov (*=.)
mredstriumph 2 years ago
Bush didnt veto rep bills, how many dem bills did Clinton veto? Carter? Obama? Politics r partisan. Need I tell you that? Just look at you 20.8% is worse than 8.1%, 7.8%=fantastic, 8.1%=worse than depression
Clinton had a tech boom (bubble actually) w brought Tn's in foreign investments, housing bubble, artificially low interest r8s, & low oil costs
He repealed Glass-Steagl, brought $2.1 Bn lawsuit forcing banks to lower lending stds, FNMA securitization, NAFTA, &baln budg bc Newt made him
mredstriumph 2 years ago
Republicans have controlled Congress since '94, so they blocked every good thing Clinton tried to do -what he passed Bush reversed such as the clean air act -now we have no clean water! Unemployment is now 8.5% but the mess we're seeing now has been in the making for 8 yrs by a Republican president. The birds have come home to roost -half of the country wanted him in & they got him. Too bad the other half of us must suffer because of it.
lthom33 2 years ago
Dont get me wrong, I disagree with many of clintons actions regarding other of his ideas, but I firmly believe this was the appropriate action to take as during the month before he violated every UN sanction and removed weapons inspectors. This was a direct response and NOT an pre-emptive invasion and full occupation which opposed the Powell Doctrine and was carried through even when inspecters were allowed inside the country just prior to the war. If anything I said was wrong please correct me
accatt2204 2 years ago
I may be wrong, but im pretty sure that the congressional investgation into the weapons of mass destructon claims, concluded that ANY weapons saddam posessed that could have been functional were destroyed, by THIS exact military operation, and that Saddam in interrogation understood the UN would use airstrikes to disarm him, so he wouldnt build them until the sanctions were removed.
accatt2204 2 years ago
Clinton & other Dems were correct to have said during 1998 that Saddam had WMDs. He did, & Clintons efforts to destroy all of them were nearing successful completion just about then. We know Bush was aware in '01that Saddam then had no WMD capability because 2 of his top officials said so. It's true gullible Dems were caught up in the Bush' post-9/11 WMD lies but neither Clinton nor Congressional Dems lied us into the invasion of Iraq. And they didnt pull the trigger -Cheney & Bush did.
lthom33 2 years ago
If there were gaps in Iraqi WMD intelligence, it is a DIRECT RESULT of Clinton's bungling
Saddam routinely defied UN inspection by denying access to WMD sites. Clinton & UN passed 19 impotent resolutions. CLINTON then WITHDREW the inspectors to conduct bombing
After MONTHS of TOTAL inaction & with no new provocation, Clinton suddenly launched Operation Desert Fox the night of the House impeachment hearing trying to stop the impeachment claiming it could not be conducted "during a time of war"
mredstriumph 2 years ago
I disagree -when Clinton struck in the 90s there were weapons but these were destroyed. Clinton, as well as many others, publicly stated Hussein was no longer a threat. Regardless of your argument, you miss the most important fact -there were no WMD as Clinton and the others continuously argued. We declared war on an innocent country based upon a cherry picked CIA report Congress never bothered to read.
lthom33 2 years ago
Because u r invested in your politics, u ignore completely that Clinton wagged the dog, played politics with Iraq, radically slashed CIA intelligence budget, ordered Jamie Gorelick to build a wall SPECIFICALY 2prevent the FBI & CIA from sharing intelligence, & PERSONALLY ended WMD inspections
Recognize its ONLY because they r Dems that u give them a pass
That Reagan armed Hussein is just another example of Democrats playing politics with Foreign Policy & our National Security. Its a LIE
mredstriumph 2 years ago
I'm not going to continue to argue -research! This country has fallen a part due to Bush and his failed policies. If it makes you sleep better at night to pass the buck to someone else -more power to you!
lthom33 2 years ago
I'm not interested in an argument. I ask only that you back your claim that it was Reagan and the US that armed Saddam.
Not only is it counter productive & Anti-American, it is DEMONSTRABLY wrong.
mredstriumph 2 years ago
This UNDENIABLE and OBVIOUS fact serves perfectly to show just how perverted, dishonest, and politically manipulated your world view is.
If a person such as yourself cant see that, how could you (or any other like minded person) get ANYTHING out of reading a CIA report?
mredstriumph 2 years ago
I will not back down from the truth. It's a fact that Reagan sent billions of arms to Hussein to fight their long war with Iran. Look it up.
I love my country but hate Republican governments. They ruin everything they touch -another reality.
lthom33 2 years ago
Everything they touch such as the surge in Iraq you mean? The TRUTH you back away from is that Dems made Iraq FAR more costly than it ever needed to be & did so to win an election
US did not ARM Iraq or give WMDs. We gave them financial support against Iran - the right thing to do
Iran is now preparing to vaporize Israel under the watchful eye or Kenyan B.O. Hussein, who even now is dismantling our missile defense system as we speak.
Obama-worst qualities of dbl digit Jimmy Carter & FDR
mredstriumph 2 years ago
Yes the surge failed because the peace the 30,000 additional troops were to bring for the Iraqis to form their own government, legislation & secure their country NEVER HAPPENED. Wouldn't you call that a failure? You're wrong -US gave arms to Hussein to fight Iran -he used them on the Kurds! Also sold them to Iran contra which is against our laws. Who do you think trained Bin Laden??
lthom33 2 years ago
1 - Iraq is statistically SAFER than Chicago
2 - Even Obama had to admit the surge worked (so well he's even going to try the SAME strategy in Afganistan)
3 - Who trained Bin Laden? I don't know, but I do know who let him go...
/watch?v=l49hsyYtNFU
Watch that one to the end if you've got the guts (only 2:25 long) & tell me again about BL's training.
mredstriumph 2 years ago
5 troops were killed last week -many people die & are counted every night -safe? The surge was a failure -most know this. 30,000 additional troops brought peace (success) but it was for the Iraqi people to form their gov & secure their country (failure). Figure it out what was the objective out of the to for the surge in the first place. Laden was trained by the U.S. war experts to fight the Russians in Afghanistan in the 80s -look it up
lthom33 2 years ago
What about Bush being in Afghan-having Laden-then telling the Taliban (who would have been fighting) to deal with him? Then Bush decides to forget about Laden because he wanted easy access to the oil in Iraq. There's zero excuse not to know this by now. 1.2M Iraqis dead, our troops/coalition in harms way, 4M Iraqis displaced -a country in ruin and for what??!!
lthom33 2 years ago
Bush didn't catch OBL in Afganistan, nor did he give him2 the Taliban (who we're fighting), and order them (who are fighting us) to let him go (in Afganistan) 4 access to oil (in Iraq)
That doesnt even make sense. Where on earth are you getting that information?
Your #'s are debatable (wiki Iraq casualties) & immaterial anyway because it strains credulity that you care about Iraqis (most soft targets killed by AQ in Iraq 4US Liberal consumption), nor haveUdone ANYTHING to help veterans
mredstriumph 2 years ago
It was the influence of US oil companies that the Bush admin initially blocked intelligence agencies' investigations on terrorism while it bargained w/the Taliban on the delivery of Laden in exchange for political recognition & economic aid. This is why O'Neil (FBI) resigned. I remember it. Also the border w/ Pakistan was the key to catch Laden but Bush paid no attention to it -He had several golden opportunities to catch Laden in Tora Bora -it's a fact.
lthom33 2 years ago
FBI has no jurisdiction or activity in Pakistan. They are DOMESTIC law enforcement. You dont know what you're talking about.
mredstriumph 2 years ago
No one said he caught Laden -that's obvious but you must ask yourself why Bush turned his attention from Laden to Iraq when they had nothing to do w/9-11. Oil Corps were in oil deals w/Taliban before 9/11. I've researched info since day 1 & IF Americans knew everything the Bush admin has done they would be demanding they be prosecuted or worse. Spain has already charged them!! More countries will most likely come forward while we let those bastards just walk away -
lthom33 2 years ago
Afghan Exports: opium, fruits & nuts, handwoven carpets, wool, cotton, hides & pelts, gems
No oil.
Pipeline conspiracy? Islam & Opium dealers=no compunction against trading oil. Far cheaper, no bloodshed, just 2pay them 4 a pipeline. Chief exports-pelts, rugs, nuts. How expensive could it be?
9/11-NOT an inside job. 2 planes really DID hit WTC. CIA operatives dont blow themselves up 4 Bush, 4oil, or go2 heaven 4 killing innocent civilians. Islamic terrorists do
thereligionofpeace*com
mredstriumph 2 years ago
mredstriumpth: I'm talking about Iraq not Afghanistan. So because you either did not read my posts or totally didn't understand it, what you wrote means nothing @ the end of the day.
lthom33 2 years ago
Comment removed
mredstriumph 2 years ago
RE: I'm talking about Iraq not Afghanistan. So because you either did not read my posts...
I read your post Ithom33
You wrote: "Oil Corps were in oil deals w/Taliban before 9/11"
Forgive my belief that the Taliban are in Afghanistan, and NOT Iraq.
I hadn't realized that the FBI had secretly moved them during their Pakistan operation
mredstriumph 2 years ago
US Oil corps were in deals with Taliban. That's a fact. However it's Iraqi oil that is being stolen. And I believe it came out that Taliban was operating in Iraq in '04. They all went back to Afghan when Bush carelessly deployed troops to attack Iraq.
lthom33 2 years ago
Maybe that was just a typo like your comments about unemployment during Reagan's 2nd term?
Or your "worst economy in 80 years" comment that you've been conspicusly mum on providing details4?
Or your silence on Barn Frank stopping FNMA regulation? Or how FICA would have prevented the banking crisis?
Simply claiming someone else's #'s R wrong without explaining why the US Department of Labor or Clinton's Comptroller General got things so wrong doesn't lend much credence to your arguments
mredstriumph 2 years ago
*FDIC insurance* - not FICA
Just 2 make you feel better, I made a typo too ;-)
mredstriumph 2 years ago
Lastly, the numbers I gave are actually higher. The journalist who threw his shoes @ Bush counted civilian deaths-think about that. In '06 the number of dead was est @ 600k. Wiki? Are you serious? Read: " Iraq Body Count" & The Lancet. You don't know what I've done for veterans & giving you facts about a corrupt admin is info you should already know. You get off on murdering innocent women/kids for oil? There were no WMD & it wasn't about liberating -we're occupiers!! Get your facts straight
lthom33 2 years ago
Progressives draw feet on every fish they see, rejoice in abortion, Diefy Charles "Survival of the Fittest" Darwin, then say their command & control policies R 2save the world. True aim is POWER. Enslaved dependency
They start wars & 'give peace a chance' in the fall of Vietnam, Khmer Rouge, Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia, & try 2do in Iraq, chanting 'love' as the bodies stack
Evil US 'occupation'-what stopped war & constant bloodshed of Europe from the Fall of Rome 476AD till mid 20th cent
mredstriumph 2 years ago
A civics lesson on Republican governments:
/watch?v=4EPfRPHrS7o
Freedom, NOT Democratic fascism made America the country it is today
/watch?v=wFF1uI2ERwE
mredstriumph 2 years ago
10 yrs ago -that's a lot of time that's passed. How anyone can compare Clinton to Bush is beyond reality. When your country is in it's worse economic crisis in over 80 yrs, the national debt is over $10Tn & deficit is $1.7Tn, 2 wars, debts to China, torture, defecating on the constitution, illegally firing attorneys, outing CIA agents, etc...you need to worry about what Bush has done not Clinton. Obama has inherited the mess to clean up -Dems always do because history does not lie.
lthom33 2 years ago
History doesnt lie. But Dems lie about history.
If dems hadn't won congress there wouldnt be an economic crisis
Understanding crisis:
/watch?v=Q0zEXdDO5JU
Why it happened:
/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64
/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Carter left DOUBLE DIGIT inflation, DOUBLE DIGIT unemployment. DJIA drops >30% since Obama
Repubs - Iraq, 6yrs, 4K dead, Energy=legitimate national security
Dems - Vietnam, 10 years, 60K dead, no national security interest, MILLIONS murdered after Dem withdrawl
mredstriumph 2 years ago
Bush LEGALLY fired 8 US attorneys, Clinton fired 93! Some ACTIVELY INVESTIGATING HIS ADMINISTRATION
Pillow fights/Frat pranks declared "torture" by Dems for political propaganda during a war, terrorists given rights of citizens, Al Queda released 2attack US
US $53Tn debt for Democrat Ponzi schemes SS, Medicare, Medicaid ->per US worker = $415,000 (source liberal film IOUSA)
Even @$415K debt / worker, Dems say govt needs to spend MORE 2provide healthcare - when NO1 is denied HC now!
mredstriumph 2 years ago
A president can do so but the question is did Gonzalez do it? That's where it's illegal. The torture issue is a fact in which the world is aware. This is being investigated.
You have no clue to what you're talking about. That $53Tn is no where near the truth - it's not even worth discussing. The future debt of the country depends on how much it will take to clear the colossal debt & many messes made by the Bush admin. It's crawling out of a hole. 43M Americans are without healthcare.
lthom33 2 years ago
I'm done arguing, but that $53 Trillion (as of 2007) is from David Walker, Comptroller General of USA, the nation's top accountant,& head of the GAO - government accountability Office (1998-2008)
He's a Clinton Appointee. If those credentials dont impress u, I dont know what 2say
The film is IOUSA, it's full of liberal distortions, but it addresses an important issue our country will be facing
/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo
Ignore it like a lib, but j like AlQ, it wont be ignoring u
Good lk
mredstriumph 2 years ago
Sorry but anyone who supports Bush after every thing he's done just isn't informed. Either that or you are in denial -perhaps live on another planet.
lthom33 2 years ago
Why you should appologize is4 rejecting the govt's top accountant simply because you dont like what he has to say
FACT-your healthcare provider of choice is $53Tn in debt (2007) thanks to Democrat-Madoff-Pyramid schemes; new admin's response is2 QUADRUPLE budget debt in just 4 months, nationalize economy, repeal welfare reform, & incr spending on EVERYTHING but missile defense
Clinton repealed Glass-Steagle, CRA O&Acorn Compelled bad loans, B Frank derailed FNMA regulation, gave 2.5Tn 2WS
mredstriumph 2 years ago
Result: Saddam vows he will not only continue2 defy UN inspection, but now REFUSES to allow their return
Having successfully "addressed" the WMD inspection issue, Clinton declared Desert Fox a "success", ending operations Dec. 19th, the very day he had been impeached
Recall months earlier, Operation Infinite Reach:
Clinton, acting on what later turned out 2B ZERO evidence, attacked a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant, just coincidentally preempted coverage of Monica's Congressional Testimony
mredstriumph 2 years ago
Dems such as yourself characterize this as acting with honesty and integrity, & w 20/20 hindsight say we should take Saddam at his word. "There were never WMDs"
Still without the benefit of the Democrat's (who gave us Vietnam-58,159 dead, 2K missing 303,635 wounded) perfect 20/20 hindsight, one has to wonder WHY Saddam continued to defy the UN
Why did he give up his life, his power, & the lives of his sons to hide in a cave & die on the end of a rope 4 non-existant WMDs? Why did he CHOOSE war?
mredstriumph 2 years ago
Dems - even Hillary Clinton - Senator & wife of a former Pres, says they were confused, charmed,misled by Bush. How believable is that??
What they never say is that THANKS TO CLINTON, who pursued his PERSONAL agenda at the expense of the country, no1 KNEW *at the time*
Either we trust Saddam's word - leaving USA & the MidE@ risk - or turn over that terrorist sponsoring (not 911, but TRUE) militarily expansionist murderous rock & act on the blatant & continuous violation of the GW1 CEASE FIRE
mredstriumph 2 years ago
All were mislead by Bush not just H. Clinton. However I blame them as well for not reading the actual CIA report. Also she should have apologized for her part because I think it hurt her in the primaries. Also as far as weapons it was Reagan who sold weapons to Hussein as well as Iran. This is how we knew they had them - It's careless.
lthom33 2 years ago
If Reagan (America) armed Saddam, I defy you to explain why Saddam's government was armed with RUSSIAN T-82 tanks, RUSSIAN RPGs, RUSSIAN AK-47s, RUSSIAN mines, RUSSIAN planes, RUSSIAN missiles, RUSSIAN artilery, RUSSIAN chemical weapons, & have absolutely NO American weapons
It is only that u r invested in your polics & against Repubs that an otherwise intelligent person such as yourself overlooks such an OBVIOUS fact.
CIA reports arent reliable if the CIA & UN inspections are not ALLOWED
mredstriumph 2 years ago
Clinton did not invade Iraq & throw the US into a ridiculous, endless, bloody quagmire. He managed to disarm Hussein w/out taking this disastrous step. There is evidence that the Bush administration knew this:He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction." Colin Powell He (Saddam) does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt. Condoleezza Rice
lthom33 2 years ago
If anyone wants to look at a website that is a GOLD MINE of information google: Reasons for War-Things You May Have Forgotten About the Iraq War.
There are documents, videos, etc....TONS of stuff!
fatdanios 2 years ago
wow, I'm a conservative and even I didn't know this. I been living with elitist teachers and "friends" in Taxachusetts for too long... anyways, Kerry, Biden, and Hillary ALL VOTED FOR THE WAR!!! they then spoke out against it when it looked like it could easily be criticized....
h2opolodan11 2 years ago 2
We easily couldve mantained their inability to build a strong force without costing thousands of lives and over 500 Billion dollars of foreign investments. I know it can be hard for some other people to wrap their heads around but sometimes threatening other nations directly whether it be Clinton or Bush causes people to become defensive, thus causing much more problems then there ever was to begin with.
accatt2204 2 years ago
In addition this was a 4 day AIR CAMPAIGN aimed at reducing the effectiveness of Saddam to produce weapons of mass destruction, costing MUCH less casualties, and colateral damage. This came directly following his violating the weapons inspections and disrupting them. Most of the weapons and his ability to make those weapons were destroyed in this campaign according to the congresssional report on the Iraq War.
accatt2204 2 years ago
There are dozens of brutal dictators, that havent ever been removed, now I for one dont think sitting back and watching an active genocide in Darfur is moral for the Bush administration, if their willing to lie about ending what was an inactive weapons program, and major war crimes 20 years ago and suspected of occuring now. Of course he was evil, no question, but we need to also look after ourselves, and whether our actions are in the best interest of our economy, military, and fellow nations
accatt2204 2 years ago
no one question's whether saddam HAD wmds, or that hes an evil man... but as to whether he was in development of them at the time we invaded, and we have the responsibility of removing every dictator from power when its truely the citizens responsibilty to overthrow a government.
accatt2204 2 years ago
The Taliban, 911, and Al Queda is all just baggage that must be dealt with in the aftermath of removing "Saddam - the Rapist."
Should have been handled better.
Low troop count did not help the US.
Send Lawyers Guns Money.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
December 16th, 1998.
Clinton responds to Sadams move to cancle UN inspections. This is the beginning of the Iraq War under Bush 2.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
That is exactly why I think most US politicians are maniacs :)
JRBendixen 3 years ago
Something similar happened to me, but in a realtionship way. There was a big problem and I got involved, which made things a whole lot worse. The issue hasn't been solved eversince. I mean if it doesn't concern you even if you are his best friend, why go and get involved to make things worse? I mean in my case, I got involved with two people who were stupid and emotional and were stubborn to what I wanted them to do.
judenihal 3 years ago
You get involved because it's the right thing to do! If the US stayed out of WW1 and WW2, what do you think the world would be like today? Every Jewish person extinct, and all of the European culture destroyed by Hitler? Your logic does not hold up! The fact that you can't comprehend what this means shows me exactly how clueless you are! Using your logic, the world would have been dominated by Hitler, and we would all be speaking German and driving Volkswagons! LMFAO (tool)
BoSoxnation1972 3 years ago
mandatory showing in the congressional chamber.
semperfidelis777 3 years ago
I knew this, but not just Clinton said it. So did Nancy Pelosi, Gore, Kerry, Hillary and others all of them said Bush Lied. If Bush wouldn't have invaded Iraq, and Suddam lopped a bomb over here, they would have said " why didn't Bush do something. Everyone knew he had the WMDs. Bush should have did something. Bush was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. All of these democrats lied, not Bush. Thats another reason i have always been a republican.
sidguill 3 years ago 8
@sidguill of course he had wmds because he been using them for years. how wierd is it for them to automatically disappear. of course he hid them someplace else, why not?. i told my anti-bush liberal teacher this and she just blew me off and threw a hippie fit. she knows i was right, dems are retards
Jacoby515 1 year ago
@Jacoby515 Good for you young man. Never let a Lib's blantant lies go unchallenged!
ResearchForTruth75 1 year ago
this just shows that it doesnt matter who is in office.. the people behind the scenes pulling the strings are the same.. THE MILITARY INDUSTIAL COMPLEX ... google it..
garytheshagger 3 years ago
Suspicions were always there. But Hans Blix was told to call of his search, and the Republicans, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc, chose to go in based on false documents.
So does showing Clinton here make it any better for Bush and the gang? HELL NO !
a1mint 3 years ago
I gotta confess, this video makes a very important point, that EVERYONE thought Sadaam had WMDs, everyone. Democrats simply differed with the option to invade, agreeing with earlier Bush (HW) and earlier Cheney.
Of course, invasion is a pretty gaping difference, isn't it?
Any info avail. about Iraq's accurate claim that Kuwait violated their sovereignty by diagonal drilling? Meaning Iraq's 90 invasion was VALID?! Freaky to realize it.
mowriter 3 years ago
so we'll just let all criminals just BE in peace.
that's a real good one!
AlpondrickTheGreat 3 years ago
They are not criminals, they are treated like one because Bush, Al Gore and Bush's father made him like that by provoking him and his regime. The terrorists who did the 9/11 attack are the real terrorists.
judenihal 3 years ago
Really? Did Bush build the rape rooms? Did he gas the Kurds in the North? Did he manufacture the mass graves where over 300,000 Iraqi civilians were found murdered? Are you aware that Abu Grab was a slaughterhouse before the US Invaded, where over 100 civilians were put to death weekly? I think you need to pull your head out of your ass.
BoSoxnation1972 3 years ago 2
in power, so I would have to say to all American people who hate Saddam Hussein, Good Job for winning with the government and start this war for no reason. Congratulations for overthrowing a government who was only trying to maintain peace, but in a bad way and by using his bad way as an excuse to destory his destiny and the entire country. Good job and "Just" Good job.
judenihal 3 years ago
only made it worse by setting an embargo to his country, constantly bombing his civilans and then did a complete invasion in 2003 just to get rid of a powerful army a little less powerful than us. The biggest problem to all of this is that there are so many people have good/bad opinions and politicans like you who claim that Saddam is a threat and support having a war with him want the war, which eventually got what the country doesn't deserve and only increased terrorism since saddam isn't
judenihal 3 years ago
what goes on is alright. Who cares if Iraq invades Kuwait, the fact that they already DID in 1990, if we just focused on supporting Saddam Hussein and not worried about what he did, then I bet you the place would be much more peaceful. I know how bad he was but since he already has power, let him have power, besides what is it that people have so much against him other than himself giving out limited freedom? If we ONLY supported him, then he would regret everything he did in the past, but we
judenihal 3 years ago
you are psychic and know that saddam must have loved us prior to kuwait.
you are so uneducated on this matter it's not even funny.
don't even have to have inside sources to know what you do not.
do more studying (no pun this time)
AlpondrickTheGreat 3 years ago
How am I so uneducated? If we didn't get involved with Saddam, do you think he will choose to invade the United States? NO, he doesn't have power to do that, so why do we care for what he does? If we supported him without bothering for what he does, then obviously he is not going to attack the US for no reason. Come on, its common sense and you don't need a rocket scientist to ask weather peace is better than a war. I am not a psychic and uneducated either.
judenihal 3 years ago
He invaded Kuwait and launched Scud Missles at Israel. Those are our allies in the area. If we chose to only get involved in a war when an enemy directly threatened to invade the US, then we would have never interveined in WW1 or WW2, and the world would be in far worse shape than it is today. Should we have just let Hitler slaughter every Jew on the planet and take over Europe?
BoSoxnation1972 3 years ago
How is it still our business? Its not our job to kill more people he did.
judenihal 3 years ago
How is it our business? Let me simplify things for you! Say you are the toughest kid on your block(I know it's a stretch, but bear with me)Then all of a sudden a kid moves in and beats the shit out of your best friend. Then he throws a rock through the window of another one of your friends. Then he tries stealing your best friend's bike. Should you sit back and do nothing because he hasnt challenged you?I mean, your logic is asinine! You're trying to segregate us from everyone else in the world!
BoSoxnation1972 3 years ago
AlpondrickTheGreat, All I have to say is "Thank You" for supporting America into making a big mistake, by going into Iraq and by starting a war with Saddam. You are taking the wrong with everything I say. Helping victims is 'bad', IF it involves war and fighting, especially when it doesn't concern us. Leaving friends to perish is not OK, but if its perished like all other countries were in history, THEN its OK. I never said giving more strength to the obvious abuser is alright, I said ignoring
judenihal 3 years ago
it concerns US more than you give credit to.
AlpondrickTheGreat 3 years ago
America thinks they are the boss over every other country. They want to be the only countries to have WMD's and torchure other countries that do. If the US only never shown thenselves enemies against Saddam Hussein, maybe they wouldn't be so concerned. America going into war with Iraq for this stupid reason is completely stupid for the Americans and one day, they will suffer the same wrath, not the civilians, but the governments.
judenihal 3 years ago
judenhihal,
many other countries have nuclear tech and we don't push being their boss.
do you think criminals should be free to commit crimes?
threat to the globe and our livlihood is severe even prior to any kuwait invasion.
you are severely deluded because of lack of facts that would install thanks to this type of heroic efforts to rid evil threats that take the freedoms many die for.
huge exaggerations 'torture, wmd's in every other country, same wrath'
you've gone haywire dude.
AlpondrickTheGreat 3 years ago
Don't You Understand. We Did NOT do something heroic. We made the biggest mistake and you in DENAIAL WITH THE FACT THAT WE DID. OPEN YOUR EYES AND STOP BEING STUBBORN, we destoryed a country just for one man, we have increased terrorism, we messed up Americas reputation, all because faggots like you who have a LACK of understanding would support bad things happening on earth, just for the US to police the world. Copying what Saddam did is completely wrong and illegal and you need to get that.
judenihal 3 years ago
judenihal,
'faggots' are the wusses that do nothing to take out just 'one man' that plans to take many and already has.
'copying saddam'. you sure make many exaggerated claims with no relevance nor explanation of any of your slanderous babble of selfish unthankful mindset giving no thought to my previous statements but merely dodging them with more ridiculous bipolarism.
explain 'copying saddam' or any of the other questions i asked previously. can't do it w/o contradicting yourself?
AlpondrickTheGreat 3 years ago
i did not contradict myself. i CAN explain if youtube didn't have the annoying comment limit. do do think america did a good job by bombing buildings which can never be recreated? do you think that bombing innocent people just for the overthrow of saddam is a heroic thing? just think of what america did to the country before looking at the political views. It doesn't matter weather they make are trying to make it a better country or not. They started a war which is not a wise solution.
judenihal 3 years ago
Clinton was impeached.
Lied while under oath.
Disbarred.
An embarrassment to all Americans.
Cheated on Hillary (lost count on the bimbos)
Pardoned an amazing amount of really bad criminals.
Had he any honor - he would have resigned and saved face.
FreeAgain2 3 years ago
also demanded release of a known terrorist that later caused great demise unto us.
this was a great vid. for the deluded illuminate buffs.
actually wont help those purposeful anarchist' for they have their agenda to carry evil out promoting chaos disguised as 'change'.
AlpondrickTheGreat 3 years ago
The difference between Clinton's "lies" and Bush's lies is that, after all, with Clinton the U.S. prospered. With Bush, the U.S. went straight to hell. After 8 years, you can't say that Clinton was just lucky, or that Bush was just unlucky. Clinton was pretty darn good president. Bush is not half the president Clinton was.
ccaldero 3 years ago
That's a point. Do me a favor and tell me what Bush lied about and what Clinton lied about.
freedomtodance 3 years ago 3
we're waiting.
AlpondrickTheGreat 3 years ago
omg you retard americans you are in your own god damn world you are making the world red on blood and you cant get the basic you cote 2 times bush? the worst you could ever vote the think is that you are always going 2 be papets and never wake up
likainas 3 years ago
Now reading back on history and remembering what was going down, remember the majority in the Congress was the Republicans from 1996 on. From what I have read the Repubs didn't take Clinton seriously because of the Lewinsky scandel. It wasn't until 9/11 that they took it seriously. You can't go to war without Congesses approval! Of course he had to ask for the Republicans approval.
whyputaname 3 years ago
I understand what you are saying but the film would be more believable if it weren't cutup or having the music added to it.
whyputaname 3 years ago
all u people on this channel are fuckin idiots. especially the moron that posted it. keep drinking your punch and keep that george bush dick up your white ass. lmfao. america is going down in flames and u crackers have yourselves to blame for it. LOL.
FuckUtube2008 3 years ago
The war is unnessesary, America should have let Saddam do what he wanted and taken action if he was going to interfere with American lives. They should have allied up with Saddam Hussein instead of going to war with him, overthrowing him and allowing the country to be corrupt with freedom and terrorism.
judenihal 3 years ago
You forgot that Iraq invaded Kuwait. Saddam went after the US as revenge, for us kicking him out of there. Saddam used his money and trained terrorist to get his revenge.
Auggie56 3 years ago
Exactly. The Americans should have never gone and defeated Saddam from going into Kuwait. The Americans should have not cared and only maintained peace between all the countries in the middle east, including Saddam Hussein. I did not forget the Persian Gulf War. I think the Americans made the most foolish mistake when they fought against Saddam Hussein just because they believe that stopping him would bring peace to the middle east. Guess What? Wrong, that only made the mideast more vulnerable.
judenihal 3 years ago
judenihal
'The Americans should have not cared and only maintained peace between all the countries in the middle east, including Saddam Hussein.'
don't get involved but maintain peace?
so watch, do nothing for friends then smile at the enemy to appease him so he doesn't beat you up too?
get a job.
AlpondrickTheGreat 3 years ago