Sarah Palin Says Independence Day Is For Remembering When Jesus Led The Revolution

realbrown1

Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
You were saying?
He is not saying we should not have invaded. He is saying because we didn't find the WMD's, know that earlier would have made it impossible to gather support for the invasion.

The problem is, Saddam had them. He used them on the Kurds. The weapons inspectors found some and destroyed what they found. They were gone by the time we invaded.

Do you hear just what you want to hear, and leave all the other words out?
 

10 point

Well-Known Member
You were saying?
"Should not have invaded" came WELL after his intellectual and verbal support in the beginning.

Don't twist the facts. I watched Powell on TV when he was giving credibility to the info on WMDs and he was not against the war until later down the road.
If all you're going to do is bash Bush and republicans here it shows little objectivity. Posting half truths is childish.
 

728ups

All Trash No Trailer
He is not saying we should not have invaded. He is saying because we didn't find the WMD's, know that earlier would have made it impossible to gather support for the invasion.

The problem is, Saddam had them. He used them on the Kurds. The weapons inspectors found some and destroyed what they found. They were gone by the time we invaded.

Do you hear just what you want to hear, and leave all the other words out?
um,where is your outrage on the weapons used against the kurds by Saddam which he purchased from The USA?
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
He is not saying we should not have invaded. He is saying because we didn't find the WMD's, know that earlier would have made it impossible to gather support for the invasion.

The problem is, Saddam had them. He used them on the Kurds. The weapons inspectors found some and destroyed what they found. They were gone by the time we invaded.

Do you hear just what you want to hear, and leave all the other words out?


They found some?? Are you serious? Hans Blix told the world, that after his inspections THEY FOUND NOTHING.

Then the BUSH lying machine went to work. All the talk about mobile labs, yellow cake, aluminum tubes, and poison gas.

Then BUSH appoints David Kay as his PERSONAL WEAPONS INSPECTOR.

But guess what BUSH's personal weapons inspector says two days after he quit from the post????

It surely isnt what you said.. "The weapons inspectors found some and destroyed what they found. They were gone by the time we invaded.""

Obviously, you know something that the world and the weapons inspectors didnt..

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/

Maybe you would want to reconsider your position on weapons of mass destruction, and while your at it, convince OLDGRAY that he has it wrong as well.

TOS.
 

oldngray

nowhere special
They found some?? Are you serious? Hans Blix told the world, that after his inspections THEY FOUND NOTHING.

Then the BUSH lying machine went to work. All the talk about mobile labs, yellow cake, aluminum tubes, and poison gas.

Then BUSH appoints David Kay as his PERSONAL WEAPONS INSPECTOR.

But guess what BUSH's personal weapons inspector says two days after he quit from the post????

It surely isnt what you said.. "The weapons inspectors found some and destroyed what they found. They were gone by the time we invaded.""

Obviously, you know something that the world and the weapons inspectors didnt..

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/

Maybe you would want to reconsider your position on weapons of mass destruction, and while your at it, convince OLDGRAY that he has it wrong as well.

TOS.

It was confirmed by wikileaks. WMDs were found.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
"Should not have invaded" came WELL after his intellectual and verbal support in the beginning.

Don't twist the facts. I watched Powell on TV when he was giving credibility to the info on WMDs and he was not against the war until later down the road.
If all you're going to do is bash Bush and republicans here it shows little objectivity. Posting half truths is childish.


10 point, lets be clear. POWELL was against the war from the jump and he has said so, but unfortunately, he was a part of the administration at the time, and he simply had to do what he was told to do.

Yes, did he speak about weapons of mass destruction? YES he did. Did he believe it? NO he didnt. Did he want a war in Iraq? NO he didnt. Furthering with "if we break it, we own it".

Its clear and the record is abundantly clear, that there were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to our invasion.

The war was a money making scheme and it cost us thousands of americans lives and over two hundred thousand iraqi civilians lives. The war cost us 3 trillion dollars and we accomplished nothing.

As for Powell, when he stepped down, the BUSH administration was quick to put Condoliar Rice in Powells place to carry on the scam. She had no problem speaking about chemical weapons and such, and she kept up the scam on the american people.

Those on the right wing bought into this lie wholeheartedly, and today, they still do. Just look at your posts, and OLDGRAY, and AV8, and REALBROWN. Your still convinced there was a justification for this war and the facts prove that there wasnt.

But, now, we are haunted by Powells words that "if we break it , we own it".

All we did was destroy the infrastructure of Iraq, leave it in poverty, install a puppet government with a leader who was friendly to us and Iran and bad for the people.

Now the country is living in the shambles that "WE" created by our "shock and awe".

Saddam, as a sunni, was a majority leader, but he had the country under control. There were no car bombings, no suicide bombings, no shootings and no religious factional shootings.

Yes, back under the reagan administration, with the help of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the USA with Reagans approval, sent chemical weapons to Saddam to use on the iranian military, and he did. But, anyone above a 5 IQ knows that chemical weapons have a shelf life of less than 10 months, and saddam had those pesky kurds to deal with in the north.

Oil rich lands is what Saddam wanted, along with the help of the oil men of the USA.

So why not use the Chemical weapons on the kurds that the USA proudly gave to him? They authorized the use of the weapons in the first place.

Saddam used the USA chemical weapons on the kurds and killed approx 7500 people in two strikes. The number of people killed with our poison gas is always exaggerated by the right wing. I have heard near a million people killed with chemical weapons by right wing people.

Of course, that isnt true.

The war wasnt suppose to cost us any money, and we were sold ( by the bush administration) that OIL was going to come to the USA in exchange for our help.

Well, as of today, we get ZERO OIL from Iraq.

Lets be honest, the iraq war was a huge waste of money and soldiers lives, but isnt that the case with every war?

TOS.
 

oldngray

nowhere special
the Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which specifically called for regime change in Iraq as the official policy of the United States government (Iraq had repeatedly violated international law, Iraq had failed to comply with the obligations that ended the Gulf War, Iraq had circumvented U.N. resolutions, etc.).
"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow," President Clinton said in February 1998. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
http://www.aina.org/news/20110423151257.htm
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
the Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which specifically called for regime change in Iraq as the official policy of the United States government (Iraq had repeatedly violated international law, Iraq had failed to comply with the obligations that ended the Gulf War, Iraq had circumvented U.N. resolutions, etc.).
"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow," President Clinton said in February 1998. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
http://www.aina.org/news/20110423151257.htm


You're making my argument that there is no real difference between democrats and republicans. Take away the rhetoric, Obama is the same damn thing. The problem is that both sides of the contrived narrative are so locked into their talking points, they can't see the forest for the trees.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
the Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which specifically called for regime change in Iraq as the official policy of the United States government (Iraq had repeatedly violated international law, Iraq had failed to comply with the obligations that ended the Gulf War, Iraq had circumvented U.N. resolutions, etc.).
"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow," President Clinton said in February 1998. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
http://www.aina.org/news/20110423151257.htm


Again, another fail.

The bill, "The Iraq liberation act of 1998" was a republican sponsored bill, researched by republicans, presented by republicans and PUSHED by neo con William Kristol, aka BILL KRISTOL of fox news and weekly standard fame.

Bill Kristol, since 1997 while running the conservative think tank THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY, has promoted the concept of invading Iraq since 1988 at the tail end of Reagans horrible term as president.

Reagan would authorize a war with Iraq, and neither would Bush 1, but the Kuwait war was as far as daddy Bush would go.

Bill Kristol, pushed republicans to attack Iraq and Clinton wouldnt do it without substantial proof of chemical weapons.

There wasnt any.

The bill was sponsored by Representative Benjamin A. Gilman (Republican, NY-20) and co-sponsored by Representative Christopher Cox (Republican, CA-47). The bill was introduced as H.R. 4655 on September 29, 1998. The House of Representatives passed the bill 360 - 38 on October 5, and the Senate passed it with unanimous consent two days later. President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.[3]

Remembering that the republicans controlled both the house and senate, it was easy to pass. Clinton signed it, but didnt support going to war for chemical weapons he had no proof existed.

You can attempt to piece together some kind of logic on this issue, but you will continue to be unsuccessful.

TOS.
 

728ups

All Trash No Trailer
He should be hanged right next to the current President if you are prepared to go down that road.
I'll be more than happy to go down that road. The Nazi Generals were hanged for invading Sovereign Countries and killing the populations on very similar imaginary reasons the USA invaded Iraq
Crimes Against Humanity
Crimes Against peace
Pursuing an Agressive War
Bush,Cheney, Rice et al are just as guilty of the same crimes
 

728ups

All Trash No Trailer
rummy.jpg

This picture was taken with Donal Rumsfeld and Saddam in 1983, AFTER the Kurds were gassed and the USA had full knowledge of the act. there was no outrage as Iraq was at war with our common enemy Iran
 
Top