Democrats said there were WMD's before Bush was even President

WAR <> NO WAR

 

Cool story brah.

 

Please link to articles you source.

 

dems didn't start a war. I agree that Clinton may have used Iraq to score political points but Bush was the person who actually was stupid to get mired over there.

that being said, I'm happy to hear the citizens showed out for elections, there maybe hope

 

And that, gentlemen, is why this meme still exists:

 

The argument was lost years ago. Your side lost SunsRocketsfan

 

Dolchstosslegende

Erich Ludendorff would be proud. Never let reality get in the way of a good pity party.

 

Sadam did have some chemical weapons. We gave them to him years before and remained silent when he used them on the Iranians and the Kurds back in the day.

The thing is he destroyed them and we basically knew it before the latest war on Iraq.

If it would change your mind I can get you some cites to show what I said was true.

If you want to remain uninformed and a true believer in FOX/GOP etc, I won't bother.

 

I effin' hate Bush. He's a war criminal. He's a liar. He has crippled the US and our place in the world for generations.

He sacrificed the blood of American soldiers for his own political ambitions and personal fantasies. He made horrible decisions based on what he imagined the world to be instead of looking at the facts. I hate that mofo. He deserves all the blame and what he doesn't, he should still get for letting people like Cheney and Yoo serve in his administration.

There is a difference between thinking Iraq had weapons and going to war... that difference is usually referred to as something called "sanity." What you also conveniently forget to mention is that most of those quotes came when the Bush Administration was controlling the intelligence and steering the country to war... not to mention pimping 9/11 and calling anyone opposed to their plans as unAmerican or worse.

Those were dark days and a fair number of our citizens lost their minds. I forgive them. I can't forgive those like yourself that remain intentionally ignorant and keep bombarding us these discredited wingnut zombie email/lists/screeds.

 

1. I think most people believed Saddam had WMD's. But most people didn't favor going to war because of it. Bush, however did.

2. Even if there were some who felt that if Saddam had WMD's we should go to war would have let the inspectors who were there finish there job. They would have discovered that Saddam didn't actually have any threatening WMD's and we could have saved billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of lives. Bush, however, pulled the inspectors out and attacked.

Whether Dems also believed there were WMD's doesn't lessen the mistakes Bush made one single bit. It isn't what one side or the other believed, it's what actions they would have taken or wouldn't have based on those beliefs.

 

yeah and Bush and Cheney definitely lied about the evidence for WMD. If the evidence was that "Iraq might have chemical weapons", Bush and Cheney would claim "we know for sure that..." even though the evidence was often totally unclear. Most people did think they had some chemical weapons but Bush and Cheney made it out like they could nuke us at any moment which was complete horse ****. Iraq was never an imminent threat. The CIA even said that the only way that Iraq would ever attack us, if they did have WMDs, would be if we attacked them first, which shows that the right's rationale for war was complete horse****. We had to go to war or they were going to attack us, except there was a consensus in the intelligence community that Hussein would never attack unless provoked; therefore the idea that we had to go after Hussein to protect is just complete horse****. Here's a couple examples of Bush and Cheney "exaggerations" (lies) on Iraq's supposed WMDs and Iraq's connection with Al Queda. If you'll notice also, Bush and Cheney were clever in a way about there lies. They knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so they never really said "Iraq helped Al Queda" or "Iraq and Al Queda were responsible for 9/11", but they would often imply that without explicitly saying it. This would allow Bush and Cheney to lie afterwards and say that they never said that Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. For example, Cheney said that it was "pretty well confirmed" that Mohamed Atta went to Prague and met with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakial, several months before the attack" (and later, in the clip below Cheney lied about saying that it was "pretty well confirmed"). So Cheney could say that he never said that the Iraqi intelligence official helped plan 9/11.... But by saying that they met several months before 9/11 (which is still bull****) he is implying that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Bush did the same thing. ""Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known". Again he's implying that Saddam was to blame for 9/11 without explicitly saying it. It was calculated bull****.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/K_gm1zNURfo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/K_gm1zNURfo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/x7xyd_IRgGs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/x7xyd_IRgGs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

"The document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."

Tony Blair, 2002

 

The true stupidity was that Saddam hadn't used a chemical weapon in over ten years. I saw someone speculate that the reason saddam was never totally open with inspectors is because he had nothing and he didn't want the world to know it.

 

Damn those war criminals, allowing the Iraqi people to have an opportunity to write their own constitution and have elections to finally have their voices heard. Damn you Bush!!!

On a side note.....why are we still over there even now when Bush is out of office?

 

because its not a freaking campsite, you can't just hop up and remove thousands of troops

 

is that the justification which was used by Bush to go to war?

is that worth the thousands of american lives and billions of US taxpayer's money?

 

Not to mention almost destroying the American economy because he tried to kill my daddy!

 

We are in the process of leaving. The reason why we aren't out now, is because we are trying to leave in a responsible way, rather than a way that will cause the nation to collapse.

The fact that some good came from the project isn't relevant to people lying to get us into war.

If giving people fair elections was the reason, why didn't Bush invade Pakistan? Why didn't Bush invade Turkmenistan? Why didn't Bush invade Equatorial Guinea?

To act like it's all ok because once our people got inside they did some bits of good, doesn't make the whole exercise alright.