Bush lied Quotes

[2centsworth]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

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

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

[Oh, Gee!!]

You're right, looks like Iraq was worth it after all.

[01Snake]

Here comes Croutons....

[gtownspur]

You're right, looks like Iraq was worth it after all.


We lost military personell in a war, OMG!

[boutons_]

Saddam is the best magician since Houdini.

He hid all that WMD shit, which was an "immediate" mortal threat to the US mainland (ie, it and its means of Iraq-to-USA delivery existed) while the US military was over-flying, satellite scanning, and taking 24x7 pictures of Iraq continuously after the first Gulf war, including with increased intensity after dubya put the US military on war footing in 2002.

And what WMD mass killing did Saddam do after the Gulf War.?
All his WMD stuff was done while he was holding hands with Cheney/Halliburton/Baker/Reagan/Bush in the 80s.

This magical sleight-of-hand is certainly Saddam's lasting legacy.

Any quotes and "evidence" after Nov 2000 are "inoperative", as dickhead/rummy/feith/PNAC/neo-cunts were certainly already pressuring NatSec to "fixup" the intel to support their grab for Iraqi oil.

Sunni Saddam's overwhelmingly primary enemy was next-door Shiite Iran, NOT the distant USA. Saddam sent extremely primitive, shitty rockets into Israel during the Gulf War in 91, but, after his military was destroyed, had sophisticated missiles, warheads, and rockets that could hit the USA in 2003? GMAFB

[2centsworth]

You're right, looks like Iraq was worth it after all.
way over your head.

[101A]

Hypocite who now believes what we want them to = good

Politician who is unapologetic and stubbornly refuses to cave to popular opinion = HORRIBLE!

Why do YOU think we get the politicians we do, and why do they act that way?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Let's hope Bush relied on intel that was post 1998. Something tells me Bush used whatever intel that made the case for war.

Who gets to review more intel? The President or Congress? Is it possible that Bush only allowed COngress to see what he wanted them to see? There is at least one piece of intel that Bush only gave one side of the story and not the other that contradicted the same evidence he gave to Congress (soemthing tells me that this was not an isolated incident).. So old these republicans are now using Democrats to justify this unecessary war.. nice try..Bush started it..





In 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in September, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States now had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States.

Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets. The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.


So Bush only gave half the story? but,but,but,but,but the dems said it too....idiot

[clambake]

If you people keep pointing out our lies, you will embolden the enemy.

[101A]

Let's hope Bush relied on intel that was post 1998. Something tells me Bush used whatever intel that made the case for war.

Who gets to review more intel? The President or Congress? Is it possible that Bush only allowed COngress to see what he wanted them to see? There is at least one piece of intel that Bush only gave one side of the story and not the other that contradicted the same evidence he gave to Congress (soemthing tells me that this was not an isolated incident).. So old these republicans are now using Democrats to justify this unecessary war.. nice try..Bush started it..





In 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in September, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States now had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States.

Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets. The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.


So Bush only gave half the story? but,but,but,but,but the dems said it too....idiot


Based on all of those quotes, and what we know now, I have no doubt that the administration intentionally made the case much stronger than it was.

I also know that Congress had access to alot of information, could have asked for more, and COULD have been more skeptical. They were not. To hear them say it now though, would be impossible.

[Extra Stout]

This is really easy: In 2002, Bush was riding sky-high in the polls, and it was politically expedient for Democrats to go along with his Iraq war plans. That's all there is to it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

We all must remember that karl rove admitted that the GOP is viewed as stronger on national defense and he was going to play on that. Of course Bush was told that this was going to be an easy action with few casualties and that this was a win-win for the GOP. On one hand saddam would be goine and a democracy would be thirving in Iraq and on the other Bush could ride his wartime presidency easily into his second term. We would be greeted as liberators and we would be out in a year curveball said.

[Oh, Gee!!]

We lost military personell in a war, OMG!


and billions of dollars, and goodwill, and trust

[Oh, Gee!!]

way over your head.

you're point was that some dems look like hypocrites. My point was, who cares?

[101A]

you're point was that some dems look like hypocrites. My point was, who cares?


Hypocrisy in politics = O.K.

Got it.

[Yonivore]

Saddam is the best magician since Houdini.

He hid all that WMD shit, which was an "immediate" mortal threat to the US mainland (ie, it and its means of Iraq-to-USA delivery existed) while the US military was over-flying, satellite scanning, and taking 24x7 pictures of Iraq continuously after the first Gulf war, including with increased intensity after dubya put the US military on war footing in 2002.
This seriously -- and ignorantly -- overestimates the coverage capabilities of satellite imagery. It's not 24.

Also, the U.S. was not "over-flying" Iraq. Coalition Forces were patrolling a "no-fly zone" demarcation, there were no routine fly-overs of areas between those zones except for probably recon and intelligence gathering.

And, as far as 24x7 pictures of Iraq, continuously, after the first Gulf war; that's not even possible -- if, as it appears -- you're inferring there was 24x7 pictures of every square mile of Iraqi geography, updated second by second. Nevermind the Googleplex of storage capacity in which you'd keep all this imagery, where the fuck are you going to get the human eyeballs to look at it?

You're a fucking idiot boutons.

The amound of WMDs Saddam Hussein is suspected to have had could have easily been moved, destroyed, or hidden. Period.


Any quotes and "evidence" after Nov 2000 are "inoperative", as dickhead/rummy/feith/PNAC/neo-cunts were certainly already pressuring NatSec to "fixup" the intel to support their grab for Iraqi oil.
So answer the pre-2000 quotes by Clinton officials and the post-2000 confirmations of those same persons.


Sunni Saddam's overwhelmingly primary enemy was next-door Shiite Iran, NOT the distant USA. Saddam sent extremely primitive, shitty rockets into Israel during the Gulf War in 91, but, after his military was destroyed, had sophisticated missiles, warheads, and rockets that could hit the USA in 2003? GMAFB
Who ever said he was going to use an ICBM?

[ChumpDumper]

God damn Bill Clinton for starting this war!

[Oh, Gee!!]

Hypocrisy in politics = O.K.

Got it.

What are you gonna do? Apparently, it makes 2cents (and fellow republicans) feel better about the war in Iraq, so I guess hypocrisy has its merits.

[Yonivore]

God damn Bill Clinton for starting this war!
No, goddamn Bill Clinton for standing by while the threat grew to where only military action would resolve it.

[Oh, Gee!!]

No, goddamn Bill Clinton for standing by while the threat grew to where only military action would resolve it.

didn't happen that way, but if that belief helps you sleep better at night.....more power to you.

[ChumpDumper]

No, goddamn Bill Clinton for standing by while the threat grew to where only military action would resolve it.Yeah, Bushy was all over that from day one. It was his number one priority for the first eight months of his presidency.

[boutons_]

For the quotes, the Repugs and right-wing rabble defense now is "The hated, wimpy, weak-on-NatSec Dems were all wrong too, so we Repugs are no worse than them."

The big difference is the that Repugs madly hyped, promoated, and actually started a bogus war while the Dems didn't.

Credibility of WHIG/PNAC/neo-cunts is in the toilet, with the absence of ALL the threats WHIG said were there, unfound by UN pre-invasion, unfound by US military post-invasion.

This week, we hear about Feith and Wolfowitz trashing the NSA/CIA for not coming up with the hard evidence to support PNAC's wet dreams of an Iraqi oil grab.

More stories like this will be certainly coming out. "We'v only just begun" to get at the WHIG deceit on pre-war "intelligence".

Add in ALL the other shitty lies, like yellowcake/mobile bio-weapons labs/alu tubes/etc, that didn't pan out, it's much easier to believe the WMD NEVER existed in 2002/03 than to believe the proven liars who said they did.

WMD and all the other shit was just smoke and fog to obscure the real reasons for invading Iraq: getting to the oil and getting dubya re-elected.

Even dubya, as if he were credible, has said, so facilely, shrugging off all his own responsbility, "oops, we had bad intel, not my problem".

The WMD have not been found. The burden of proof is on the WHIG and the Yoni's to come up with the evidence. Good fucking luck. I'm waiting ....

And don't even talk about "handing a liberal democracy to Iraq" but that's not the way democracies happen. See my post yesterday "victory is not an option"

[Yonivore]

didn't happen that way, but if that belief helps you sleep better at night.....more power to you.
Tell me how it did happen then.

'93 WTC Bombing; al Qaeda remained a controlling resident in the Taliban run government of Afghanistan.

Khobar Towers; al Qaeda remained a controlling resident in the Taliban run government of Afghanistan.

'98 Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania; al Qaeda remained a controlling resident in the Taliban run government of Afghanistan. I do believe Osama bin Laden had publicly declared war on the United States at this point, as well.

'00 Attack on the U.S.S. Cole; al Qaeda remained a controlling resident in the Taliban run government of Afghanistan.

Seems to me, he could have invaded Afghanistan on February 26, 1993...and, certainly had cause to do so on several occassions thereafter. So, what's your take?

[Yonivore]

Yeah, Bushy was all over that from day one. It was his number one priority for the first eight months of his presidency.
Yeah, before he became a media darling, that's pretty much what Richard Clarke was saying. The Bush administration place more emphasis on terrorism in the first 8 months than did the Clinton administration in the prior 8 years.

[2centsworth]

God damn Bill Clinton for starting this war!
he prolonged it, ever hear of Desert Fox?

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, thank God Bush ordered plans for a full scale military invasion of Afghanistan his first day in office. He could tell an attack on the US was imminent because he so closely monitored Al Qaeda and took seriously every memo that came across his desk.

[2centsworth]

What are you gonna do? Apparently, it makes 2cents (and fellow republicans) feel better about the war in Iraq, so I guess hypocrisy has its merits.
where did I say that it makes me feel better? Can you read?

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, before he became a media darling, that's pretty much what Richard Clarke was saying. The Bush administration place more emphasis on terrorism in the first 8 months than did the Clinton administration in the prior 8 years.:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

he prolonged it, ever hear of Desert Fox?:lmao

[Oh, Gee!!]

Tell me how it did happen then.

'93 WTC Bombing; al Qaeda remained a controlling resident in the Taliban run government of Afghanistan.

Khobar Towers; al Qaeda remained a controlling resident in the Taliban run government of Afghanistan.

'98 Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania; al Qaeda remained a controlling resident in the Taliban run government of Afghanistan. I do believe Osama bin Laden had publicly declared war on the United States at this point, as well.

'00 Attack on the U.S.S. Cole; al Qaeda remained a controlling resident in the Taliban run government of Afghanistan.

Seems to me, he could have invaded Afghanistan on February 26, 1993...and, certainly had cause to do so on several occassions thereafter. So, what's your take?

doesn't justify invading Iraq. unless you think that 5th party, uncorraborated hearsay tying Iraq to OBL is enough justification

[Yonivore]

For the quotes, the Repugs and right-wing rabble defense now is "The hated, wimpy, weak-on-NatSec Dems were all wrong too, so we Repugs are no worse than them."

The big difference is the that Repugs madly hyped, promoated, and actually started a bogus war while the Dems didn't.

Credibility of WHIG/PNAC/neo-cunts is in the toilet, with the absence of ALL the threats WHIG said were there, unfound by UN pre-invasion, unfound by US military post-invasion.

This week, we hear about Feith and Wolfowitz trashing the NSA/CIA for not coming up with the hard evidence to support PNAC's wet dreams of an Iraqi oil grab.

More stories like this will be certainly coming out. "We'v only just begun" to get at the WHIG deceit on pre-war "intelligence".

Add in ALL the other shitty lies, like yellowcake/mobile bio-weapons labs/alu tubes/etc, that didn't pan out, it's much easier to believe the WMD NEVER existed in 2002/03 than to believe the proven liars who said they did.

WMD and all the other shit was just smoke and fog to obscure the real reasons for invading Iraq: getting to the oil and getting dubya re-elected.

Even dubya, as if he were credible, has said, so facilely, shrugging off all his own responsbility, "oops, we had bad intel, not my problem".

The WMD have not been found. The burden of proof is on the WHIG and the Yoni's to come up with the evidence. Good fucking luck. I'm waiting ....

And don't even talk about "handing a liberal democracy to Iraq" but that's not the way democracies happen. See my post yesterday "victory is not an option"
Man, I can almost see the spit flying out of your mouth as you say this while typing it.

You're a seriously deranged individual.

Burden of proof? This isn't a court of law. The military action -- even without WMD's -- was authorized by UNSC Resolution 1661 and the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. Deal.

[ChumpDumper]

Thank God we secured all the WMDs that Yoni still insists exist.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Thank God we secured all the WMDs that Yoni still insists exist.


and proved that Saddam was behind the 9-11 attack

[George Gervin's Afro]

Thank God we secured all the WMDs that Yoni still insists exist.



SHHHHHH He's on a role

[DarkReign]

and proved that Saddam was behind the 9-11 attack

..and that Sadaam was linked to Al Queda

[Oh, Gee!!]

The military action -- even without WMD's -- was authorized by UNSC Resolution 1661 and the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. Deal.

If Iraq was tied the attacks on 9-11, however, no evidence suggests that to be the case

[Yonivore]

If Iraq was tied the attacks on 9-11, however, no evidence suggests that to be the case
I suggest you read the AUMF again. It doesn't say that.

And, I don't think UNSC 1661 even mentions 9-11. I could be wrong though.

[ChumpDumper]

I suggest you read the AUMF again.I suggest you read all the posts you've made in the past trying to link Saddam and Osama.

[2centsworth]

I suggest you read all the posts you've made in the past trying to link Saddam and Osama.
do you ever say more than 5 words? Or is that your way of not risking your neck. Start a thread, give us some details, or something because the 5 word sarcastic post or smiley faces makes you look dumb as a rock.

[ChumpDumper]

do you ever say more than 5 words? Or is that your way of not risking your neck. Start a thread, give us some details, or something because the 5 word sarcastic post or smiley faces makes you look dumb as a rock.Aw, don't get angry. I blamed everything on Clinton. What more do you want?

[clambake]

I'm guessing people are clinging to the lies because there is no truth to trump.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously 2cents, someone uses those same quotes every couple of weeks like we've never seen them before. Do you really think this is new to us? It's not and therefore not worth anything more than an emoticon or two. Bush started the war. Period. You wouldn't be posting all those quotes if you weren't trying to spread the blame around for how badly things have gone. Well tough shit -- the buck stops with Bush.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I suggest you read the AUMF again. It doesn't say that.

And, I don't think UNSC 1661 even mentions 9-11. I could be wrong though.

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it


IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

[Oh, Gee!!]

where did I say that it makes me feel better? Can you read?


I read between the lines

[Yonivore]

I suggest you read all the posts you've made in the past trying to link Saddam and Osama.
And, I still think they're linked. But, what I think wasn't the question.

[2centsworth]

Seriously 2cents, someone uses those same quotes every couple of weeks like we've never seen them before. Do you really think this is new to us? It's not and therefore not worth anything more than an emoticon or two. Bush started the war. Period. You wouldn't be posting all those quotes if you weren't trying to spread the blame around for how badly things have gone. Well tough shit -- the buck stops with Bush.
finally something to go on. I don't blame because I'm still a supporter of the war.

I can understand people who have legitamate objections to the war. William F. Buckley strongly opposed the war and I can respect that. I have an uncle who believes war is never the answer and he can explain himself very well which I respect too. However, the Bush Lied hypocrisy not only hurts our war effort but hurts our chances of having meaningful dialogue that would hopefully result in quality legislation. btw, the republicans are guilty of the same sort of garbage and I blast them all the time. I would just like to see the dems hold their leaders accountable too.

I think we would accomplish a lot more that way.

[clambake]

Still? Even after Saddams execution? Linked in after life?

[Yonivore]

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it


IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Not that one, you idiot. This one.


Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002


Pub. L. 107–243, Oct. 16, 2002, 116 Stat. 1498, provided that:
“Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq; “Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism; “Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; “Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998; “Whereas in Public Law 105–235 (August 14, 1998) [112 Stat. 1538], Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President ‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’; “Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; “Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution [sic] of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; “Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; “Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; “Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; “Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens; “Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations; “Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; “Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994); “Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1) [set out as a note below], Congress has authorized the President ‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’; “Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1),’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’ and that Congress, ‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’; “Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338) [22 U.S.C. 2151 note ] expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; “Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ‘work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’ posed by Iraq and to ‘work for the necessary resolutions,’ while also making clear that ‘the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’; “Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary; “Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; “Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; “Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) [set out as a note below]; and “Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
“SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
“This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’.
“SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
“The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to—
“(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
“(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
“SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
“(a) Authorization.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
“(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
“(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
“(b) Presidential Determination.—In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that—
“(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
“(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
“(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.—
“(1) Specific statutory authorization.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution [50 U.S.C. 1547 (a)(1)], the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution [50 U.S.C. 1544 (b)].
“(2) Applicability of other requirements.—Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution [50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.].
“SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
“(a) Reports.—The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338) [22 U.S.C. 2151 note ].
“(b) Single Consolidated Report.—To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93–148) [50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.], all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
“(c) Rule of Construction.—To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1) [set out in a note below] is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.”

[2centsworth]

I read between the lines
liberalism is a mental disorder. reading between the lines is making stuff up based on your conditioning so says Stephen Covey.

[Oh, Gee!!]

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations"


Whereas Bush admitted that Iraq was not connected to the attack on 9-11

Whereas Bush fabricated the link between Iraq and Al-Queada

[clambake]

This thread is about lies. So, did Bush look into Putins eyes and tell another lie?

Iran says we're fabricating evidence. We've done it before. Who to believe?

[Yonivore]

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
True statement.

Abu Musab al Zarqawi was there.


Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
True statement.

Abu Nidal and payments to suicide bomber families in Palestine.


Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations"
Also true. I'd say it underscored the gravity of the threat. Just think if, in addition to hijacking those planes, they'd have managed to check a WMD on board before hand.

Yep, underscored is the right word there.

[01Snake]

Iran says we're fabricating evidence. We've done it before. Who to believe?

We know you side with Iran. They would never do such a thing.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Just think if Iraq was tied to 9-11, or if we found WMDS, or if Iraq was an actual threat; maybe the war in Iraq would have been justified. All we have is innuendo and hints that certain terrorists had ties to Iraq, but no real evidence. You don't commit thousands of troops and billions of dollars on maybe and what if.

[clambake]

I'm just saying that thanks to Bush's actions, he is now the little boy that cried wolf.

[ChumpDumper]

finally something to go on. I don't blame because I'm still a supporter of the war.

I can understand people who have legitamate objections to the war. William F. Buckley strongly opposed the war and I can respect that. I have an uncle who believes war is never the answer and he can explain himself very well which I respect too. However, the Bush Lied hypocrisy not only hurts our war effort but hurts our chances of having meaningful dialogue that would hopefully result in quality legislation. btw, the republicans are guilty of the same sort of garbage and I blast them all the time. I would just like to see the dems hold their leaders accountable too.

I think we would accomplish a lot more that way.You don't have to say Bush lied to conclude the war was a really stupid idea.

And Democrats are holding their leaders accountable. Every unscrpited Q and A Hillary has had features some person asking about her vote on the authorization for the use of force.

But really, who is ultimately accountable for this war?

It's Bush. We would accomplish alot more if we just accepted that and moved on.

[boutons_]

The UN resolution is inoperative because the mobile bio-weapons lab that Powell used to "prove" Iraq had WMD and get the UNSC resolution passed was known by people in WH and NatSec and Pentagon to be speculative bullshit, at best. And was later proved NOT be a mobile bio-weapons lab. "Bush Lied" and sand-bagged Powell by letting Powell give that speech. Powell, a military man, wasn't tough enough, was too wimpy for the neo-con war-evading deskjockeys itching to start war they personally wouldn't have to fight.

All Yoni's got now, is pile of legalistic ratshit minutiae that when piled up to the max still doesn't justify the Iraq invasion, doesn't show that Saddam was an mortal and immediate threat to the USA, and certainly not in the context of the war already under way in Afghanistan which was starved US military resources, and STILL isn't "won".

And the above is without even getting into the incompetence and absence of planning for the post-invasion, which was apparently assumed only to be a "best case" scenario.

[clambake]

You're wrong Boutons. We have already won with military action.

The surge soldiers are for touchdown celebrations.

[Yonivore]

The UN resolution is inoperative because the mobile bio-weapons lab that Powell used to "prove" Iraq had WMD and get the UNSC resolution passed was known by people in WH and NatSec and Pentagon to be speculative bullshit, at best. And was later proved NOT be a mobile bio-weapons lab. "Bush Lied" and sand-bagged Powell by letting Powell give that speech. Powell, a military man, wasn't tough enough, was too wimpy for the neo-con war-evading deskjockeys itching to start war they personally wouldn't have to fight.

All Yoni's got now, is pile of legalistic ratshit minutiae that when piled up to the max still doesn't justify the Iraq invasion, doesn't show that Saddam was an mortal and immediate threat to the USA, and certainly not in the context of the war already under way in Afghanistan which was starved US military resources, and STILL isn't "won".

And the above is without even getting into the incompetence and absence of planning for the post-invasion, which was apparently assumed only to be a "best case" scenario.
I've never heard anyone from the U.N. declare that UNSC Resolution 1661 was "inoperable"

[boutons_]

If the UN "knew then what they know now" about the bullshit mobile bio-weapons lab, I'm sure there wouldn't have been approval of the resolution.

Powell was setup, the resolution got passed on false pretenses, and you're still willing to use that ratshit to support WHIG and war. fucking amazing, and of course totally "honest".

[Yonivore]

Let's look at the relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq again...


The current flap over the Pentagon Inspector General's report on Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans has embarrassed the Associated Press, the Washington Post and, if he has any shame, the Inspector General. The controversy does have the merit, though, of raising once again the issue of the relationship between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda and other terrorists.

The Inspector General said it was "inappropriate" for Feith's group to question the wisdom of the CIA's dogma that Saddam Hussein, a "secularist," would never cooperate with bin Laden or other Islamic terrorists. There was a time, though, when the likelihood of such collaboration was widely reported and understood. Thus, courtesy of Power Line Video, we are rescuing from the memory hole this ABC News report from 2000.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid275898292/bctid494852750

The original ABC News report Powerline linked to was from January 1999, I believe, and not 2000. The report was similar to numerous accounts in the worldwide press following Operation Desert Fox. That Clinton-ordered air campaign lasted from December 16 to December 19, 1998. Its purpose was to degrade Saddam's WMD and intelligence capabilities. Reports from more recent years indicate that the campaign nearly plunged Saddam's regime into chaos.

In any event, Saddam's response was telling. Just two days after Operation Desert Fox ended he dispatched one of his top intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Hijazi was no low-level flunky. He was one of Saddam's most trusted goons and was responsible for overseeing a good deal of the regime's terrorist and other covert activities. It was this meeting that led to widespread reporting on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Thomas Jocelyn collected a bunch of these reports, including the ABC News report (above), in "The Four-Day War."

The consensus in the media then was that there was a relationship between the two and that Saddam's regime was very willing to work with al Qaeda against their common foe: America. And vice versa. Indeed, the reporting indicated that they had been working together even long before Operation Desert Fox.

The reports from late 1998 and early 1999 are tough for naysayers to explain away for a variety of reasons, but that hasn't stopped them from trying. For example, last year's Senate Intelligence Report on Iraq's ties to al Qaeda (the report was written, primarily, by a former John Kerry for President campaigner) unhesitatingly cited Hijazi's testimony, in which he claimed that he did not meet with bin Laden again after a lone incident in the mid 1990's. The Senate Intelligence report did not cite any of the voluminous reporting, by ABC News and other outlets, following the meeting in December 1998. Obviously, that reporting demonstrates Hijazi is a liar.

Of course, at the same time that the worldwide media was reporting all of this, various CIA and National Security Council officials were watching as well. Thus, Richard Clarke worried in February 1999 about bin Laden's possible "boogie to Baghdad." A month earlier he defended intelligence tying Saddam's VX nerve gas program to a suspected al Qaeda front company in Sudan. Michael Scheuer also at one time found it convenient to cite some of this evidence. In his original 2002 edition of Through Our Enemies' Eyes he approvingly cited several of the media's late 1998/early 1999 accounts. Of course, they both now pretend none of this really means anything.

It's nice when you can lie through your teeth and the media won't hold your feet to the fire.

[clambake]

Bush & CO. clearly lied. Why don't we take some advice from W himself.

"Fool me once, shame, shame uh uh, on you. Fool, fool me, well, fool, can't get fooled again".

[Yonivore]

If the UN "knew then what they know now" about the bullshit mobile bio-weapons lab, I'm sure there wouldn't have been approval of the resolution.

Powell was setup, the resolution got passed on false pretenses, and you're still willing to use that ratshit to support WHIG and war. fucking amazing, and of course totally "honest".
Can you give me a quote from one of the Security Council members to that affect?

What's fucking amazing is that you will continue to paint yourself into a corner on this issue until, when evidence become irrefutable, you have to just act crazy and say it's all a lie and you're right, just because you say so and Bush is evil and so on and so forth.

Oh wait, you're already there. I wonder what's next.

[Yonivore]

Bush & CO. clearly lied.
And yet, no lie has ever been produced. Aren't you tired of saying this yet?

[clambake]

Ok. Nobody lied. I admit it. I guess that leaves us to bear witness to the biggest mistake and failure of modern times.

Gee, kinda makes me wish we could blame this disaster on a shitload of lies.

[Yonivore]

Ok. Nobody lied. I admit it. I guess that leaves us to bear witness to the biggest mistake and failure of modern times.
I think that's yet to be seen. Personally, I believe the invasion and defeat of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq will be viewed, by history, as the greatest military campaign of all time.

The resulting insurgency and how that's been handled, maybe less so, but; I remain we'll win that war as well.


Gee, kinda makes me wish we could blame this disaster on a shitload of lies.
At least that explains why you do.

[clambake]

"greatest military campaign of all time"??????

Somebody supplying you with taliban heroine, because that statement deserves medical attention.

[Purple & Gold]

I think that's yet to be seen. Personally, I believe the invasion and defeat of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq will be viewed, by history, as the greatest military campaign of all time.

The resulting insurgency and how that's been handled, maybe less so, but; I remain we'll win that war as well.

You don't consider both of these part of a military campaign?

[Yonivore]

"greatest military campaign of all time"??????

Somebody supplying you with taliban heroine, because that statement deserves medical attention.
21 days to overthrow a dictator with as few casaulties as we took. You ask the strategists and historians at West Point how that ranks with previous campaigns.

[Yonivore]

You don't consider both of these part of a military campaign?
I think the insurgency is a result of the first but, clearly, The Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein is not a player in the current fighting, are they?

[clambake]

Yeah, they put up some fight!!! Brutal!! I don't know what it is but something keeps telling me that somehow 4 years and 21 days later provides a completely different outcome, unless this was intended to be a gift to Muslims that hate us.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, they put up some fight!!! Brutal!!
What does that mean?


I don't know what it is but something keeps telling me that somehow 4 years and 21 days later provides a completely different outcome, unless this was intended to be a gift to Muslims that hate us.
It ain't over.

And, in addition to overthrowing the regime, the Iraqis have passed a constitution, had at least two free and fair elections, and -- with the exception of a couple of Baghdad provinces -- are fairly pacified with people working, children going to school, hospitals operating -- all in greater numbers than under Saddam Hussein.

You're a glass half empty kind of guy.

[Purple & Gold]

I think the insurgency is a result of the first but, clearly, The Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein is not a player in the current fighting, are they?
They are both part of a military campaign. You can not separate them. Keeping control/law and order of an area once you have toppled it's government is part of a military campaign.

[2centsworth]

These are some of my favorites especially considering the "He played on our Fears" diatribe.

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

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

[clambake]

You forgot. It's "half glass empty". Seriously, if I were him I wouldn't talk to my family without a teleprompter. It's the bottom of the glass that matters.

[clambake]

Finding ways to like Al Gore?

[Yonivore]

They are both part of a military campaign. You can not separate them. Keeping control/law and order of an area once you have toppled it's government is part of a military campaign.
Sure you can. Just because it's occurring on the same geography doesn't mean we're fighting the same people.

[2centsworth]

It's Bush. We would accomplish alot more if we just accepted that and moved on.

It's all on Bush, accepted.

However, it's important to know that democrats will say anything to get votes and are not intellectually honest. When it comes to social security reform and other items you can't take the Democrats seriously because they will say anyting.

[01Snake]

It's "half glass empty".


:dizzy

[clambake]

I think were fighting the people who have taken up arms and have no intention of leaving. We're still fighting Iraq.

[ChumpDumper]

However, it's important to know that democrats will say anything to get votes and are not intellectually honest.How is this not known?
When it comes to social security reform and other items you can't take the Democrats seriously because they will say anyting.As will Republicans.

So what?

[clambake]

"Half glass empty" was a quote from our fearless leader, snake.

[2centsworth]

How is this not known?As will Republicans.

So what?So what? That doesn't bother you? Hypocrisy is what I believe is the biggest problem in government, that's what.

Don't be so defensive and learn to smack your own.

[ChumpDumper]

So what? That doesn't bother you? Hypocrisy is what I believe is the biggest problem in government, that's what.So?
Do be so defensive and learn to smack your own.I have. Waiting for you to do the same.

[2centsworth]

"Half glass empty" was a quote from our fearless leader, snake.
that wouldn't surprise me. The guy is the most inarticulate president I've ever seen.

[01Snake]

"Half glass empty" was a quote from our fearless leader, snake.

Oh. Gotcha

[2centsworth]

So?I have. Waiting for you to do the same.give me a break, I've started countless threads trashing republicans. Have yet to see one from you, but I could be mistaken.

As far as so, I don't get where you're coming from. All we can do is influence people within our circle, and in a small way spurstalk is in our circle.

[ChumpDumper]

I have bashed Democrats.

Whoop de doo.

[2centsworth]

I have bashed Democrats.

Whoop de doo.
Really, I see you as a loyal defender, but you're right in saying whoop de doo because we have hit a wall.

[ChumpDumper]

Really, I see you as a loyal defenderThen you've missed alot.

[2centsworth]

Then you've missed alot.
I just read your last 10 or so post, all right wing bashing. Maybe out of the 100 or so post you make there's one or two post where you hint of democrat bashing.

Help me out and show me where real quick. Maybe a thread or two that you started.

[ChumpDumper]

What quota would be good for you?

What is your precentage of Republican bashing?

[Purple & Gold]

Sure you can. Just because it's occurring on the same geography doesn't mean we're fighting the same people.
When you topple a government you also have to take the population into account. It doesn't matter if you're fighting a different army/insurgents or not. It's still part of the same military action. Trying to control a city with 10 million plus is not an easy thing to do. It was obvious that it was going to be difficult.

[clambake]

Proposing non-binding resolutions=democrats in congress suck. They're too afraid to take a position that requires their signature. Republicans don't share the same problem, they know they're losers with not much farther to fall. They'll say that dems don't support the troops while they're getting killed in iraq, one by one.

[Guru of Nothing]

finally something to go on. I don't blame because I'm still a supporter of the war.

I can understand people who have legitamate objections to the war. William F. Buckley strongly opposed the war and I can respect that. I have an uncle who believes war is never the answer and he can explain himself very well which I respect too. However, the Bush Lied hypocrisy not only hurts our war effort but hurts our chances of having meaningful dialogue that would hopefully result in quality legislation. btw, the republicans are guilty of the same sort of garbage and I blast them all the time. I would just like to see the dems hold their leaders accountable too.

I think we would accomplish a lot more that way.

Your attention to the word hypocrisy hurts our chances, far beyond your comprehension.

[2centsworth]

Your attention to the word hypocrisy hurts our chances, far beyond your comprehension.
Here we go the genius that loves to follow me around. My gosh you're a dork.

[Guru of Nothing]

Here we go the genius that loves to follow me around. My gosh you're a dork.

Unbeknownst to you, I go out of my way to be nice to you.

My thoughts, while half-baked and questionable, are original. Your next original thought will be your first.

Don't shoot the messenger.

[Guru of Nothing]

.