"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." ~Bill Clinton speech at the Pentagon 2/17/1998 I guess she was for getting rid of WMD like her hubby Bill and her nemesis George before she was against it.
Ah...so then what you're saying is that there was absolutely no protection available for our diplomats. Is that correct? Or was our Secretary of State was too ignorant of immenent threats to her own people that she decided that THIS consulate was the one to cut protection to. EVEN AFTER MULTIPLE PEOPLE INCLUDING THE AMBASSADOR HIMSELF BEGGED HER for more security.
Did we? How? I thought the talking point from Dems is there never were any to begin with. Make up your mind. Oh, and 2002 Hillary begs to differ. "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his biological and chemical weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists , including Al queda 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" Hillary Clinton 10/10/2002
Yes. We got rid of the WMD's before there was even a threat of US invasion. Bush took the US in anyway. As far as 2002 Hillary, we had the capability of verifying or debunking those intel reports without ever invading, but Bush opted to not use that option and decided to invade instead.
Who's lie? Did Bush write the intelligence reports that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton Kerry, Biden, Pelosi, Powell, etc etc were shown? If you have issues with the intelligence, it should be aimed at those who provided it. Keep in mind that Bill Clinton launched air strikes and kept a no-fly zone over Iraq based on reports from these same intelligence agencies. (Desert Fox ring a bell?)
Really not sure what your point is. You keeping jumping from topic to topic. Original Assertion: -No outrage over a huge lie which caused tens of thousands of deaths, and trillions of dollars, not mention the largest robbery of our civil liberties since WW2. -58 pages of clowns being clowns over Benghazi which was not caused by a lie.
Oh there were lies from the Bush administration. Condi Rice claiming that the aluminum tubing they found could really only be used in a nuclear program, was a huge lie. The speech Powell gave to the UN also contained lies. It's in the past now, so it's strange to go backwards and pretend like the Bush administration didn't lie about things that were going on in Iraq. There was also some bad intel that both sides of the aisle believed were true. But even those that believed the intel was accurate weren't in favor of starting a war and invading another nation over it, certainly while there still other options available to verify or nullify those intel reports.
Again, such as....????? And, let's say there were...that would still have left us in the same very messy situation. The sanctions we had imposed weren't harming Saddam in the slightest, but were having a severe impact on his people. This was turning the Muslim world even more against us. Saddam was still thwarting all the other conditions of the cease fire, and still had the stated intentions of becoming the dominant force in the Middle East. If he were somehow deposed, one of his two sons would have taken over, and there was universal agreement that either of them would have been a far worse problem than Saddam was. So, please, by all means, do tell us your magical solution to all this....
I assume you are talking about the various programs instituted to improve our national security? If so, there was pretty universal support at the time for those. So, while I can see the argument about the impact on civil liberty (although that is a debatable issue---staying alive is the most important civil liberty, you can't have the others either if you are dead). So, this certainly isn't on Bush, at least not on Bush alone. About the worst you could put on him is that he didn't do much to stop it. [ If you are admitting the Obama administration is a bunch of clowns, then I think we are all in agreement.
But the crazy overreach of Democrats in going after Bush (heck, still doing it, years later)...that is all fine, I imagine? Unlike Val Kilmer, your hypocrisy doesn't seem to only go so far.... Not this this makes you unusual. It is typical, hence the problems we have in politics today. Everyone is completely ok with all the shady tactics their guys use, but its an abomination when the other side does it. Politicians aren't stupid---they know this. In fact, they count on it. That's why they keep doing all this very stuff. So, congratulations! You are officially the very problem you complain about here.
Exactly. Franchiseblade has revisionist history. He selectively forgot the 42 UN resolutions that preceded the invasion. He doesn't have his facts straight, but instead tries to score cheap partisan points. Childish.
I assume you will do likewise? Because a lie is a lie---if you are upset about one, you should be upset about the other. If not, are you going to follow your own advice? And its certainly a lot more than just an e-mail. There was (heck, still is, Hillary STILL talks about this as if it might have been just a spontaneous reaction to the video) a whole campaign designed to obfuscate the facts, and put forward another set that they deemed more politically expedient. Which is another HUGE difference. The misinformation campaign here was done SOLELY for political gain. Personally, though, I'm less upset at that (politicians spin events all the time) than I am at all the tools out there who allow them to get away with it, so long as its their guy telling the lies. Because until that stops, they'll keep doing it, and the sheeple will not only keep giving them a pass, but actually keep defending them for doing it. The worst thing about all this is that the press did nothing about it. Any fool could see it for the lie it was. ALL of the news stations were reporting it as a terrorist attack the next day. Most of them even had analysts on saying who did it (likely Al Queda) and where they most likely were (disappeared south, into the tribal villages there, just as out of reach there as Al Queda was in Pakistan). The ONLY ones who got it wrong was our State Department. Then, when they finally mostly abandoned the lie, and tried to pass it off as a mistake, what became of the one who was 'mistaken'? Nothing. They even tried to promote her later, and have actually promoted her since. That's not what happens when somebody makes a 'mistake' of that magnitude. That ONLY happens if she was TOLD to put that forward, and is now being rewarded for doing so. Politicians love scapegoats. If that had been an actual mistake, her political career would have been over. So everyone KNOWS this was intentional, unless they are just being obtuse about it. Which means the entire misinformation campaign was intentional. You can argue about how serious that is, but it is certainly newsworthy. And did our news agencies run with that? No, not at all. Clearly indicating their bias on the matter--either that, or their complete incompetence. Take your pick...they're probably both correct.
As for their being no WMD: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=555 I would pull quotes from that, but it would quickly end up make up the entire article, as it is a summary to begin with. Several points are prominent, however. Saddam Hussein definitely DID have WMD, even after he supposedly eliminated them. He was making a mockery of the entire weapons inspection process, and clearly would continue doing so. All of the intelligence agencies came supported that Hussein had WMD. Democrats themselves, the very ones who derided Bush, supported taking action against Hussein previously. Plus, they all had the chance to vote against it before it happened. So, they certainly can't point any fingers afterwards, not that that has stopped them. Some of them even look comical in their backtracking (I was for the war before I was against it, etc etc). There are two common elements to all this. One, that politicians do it. and Two, that we keep letting them get away with it, because if my guys do it, it must be ok, right? Wrong, unfortunately---just willful ignorance, really.
