PDA

View Full Version : Warning: Rachel Maddow debunks misremembered Ronald Reagan for GOP candidates



Cigar
01-19-2016, 10:46 AM
First: Attack Rachel Maddow
Second: Attack MSNBC
Third: Attack Cigar

After you're done dripping and squirting ... wipe yourself off and try to debunk what was actually said in the Video segment.

Rachel Maddow points out the inconvenient truths about Ronald Reagan as GOP candidates attempt to live vicariously through a misremembered idol. It has been the modus operandi of Republican candidates as they wrap themselves in their parties icon. It is no different than Hillary Clinton wrapping herself in President Obama during the 4th Democratic Debate (http://egbertowillies.com/tag/democratic-debate-4/).

Recently GOP candidates have been attacking President Obama on the deal he made to bring the hostages home from Iran (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/01/18/1471397/-Obama-s-diplomacy-with-Iran-is-a-reason-to-be-proud-not-ashamed-to-be-an-American). Marco Rubio told Chuck Todd he would be like Ronald Reagan in dealing with Iran. Unfortunately Rubio is severely misremembering a Ronald Reagan who traded arms for hostages in Iran. He admitted it on national TV. Many of his National Security team were indicted. It was known as the Iran Contra scandal.

Watch a short version of the segment:
http://egbertowillies.com/2016/01/19/rachel-maddow-debunks-misremembered-ronald-reagan-for-gop-candidates-video/

del
01-19-2016, 10:47 AM
she looks like a man

her ratings suck

Truth Detector
01-19-2016, 10:50 AM
Rachel MadCow??? I didn't know anyone with even half a brain still watched that hyper partisan half wit.

http://i1313.photobucket.com/albums/t542/apple-sauce38/Positive%20Reactions/laughing/biglaugh7_zpsd701e485.gif

Bo-4
01-19-2016, 10:52 AM
Whoo boy - We all need to fear Rubio perhaps more than anybody.

He'd have us in 2 or 3 more clusterfuks within weeks if not days .. whadda neoclown.

Cigar
01-19-2016, 10:54 AM
Rachel MadCow??? I didn't know anyone with even half a brain still watched that hyper partisan half wit.

http://i1313.photobucket.com/albums/t542/apple-sauce38/Positive Reactions/laughing/biglaugh7_zpsd701e485.gif

The Speed at which you can watch a Video

Truth Detector
01-19-2016, 10:55 AM
Whoo boy - We all need to fear Rubio perhaps more than anybody.

He'd have us in 2 or 3 more clusterfuks within weeks if not days .. whadda neoclown.

.....and still it would be fewer than the current dunce.

zelmo1234
01-19-2016, 11:09 AM
First: Attack Rachel Maddow
Second: Attack MSNBC
Third: Attack Cigar

After you're done dripping and squirting ... wipe yourself off and try to debunk what was actually said in the Video segment.

Rachel Maddow points out the inconvenient truths about Ronald Reagan as GOP candidates attempt to live vicariously through a misremembered idol. It has been the modus operandi of Republican candidates as they wrap themselves in their parties icon. It is no different than Hillary Clinton wrapping herself in President Obama during the 4th Democratic Debate (http://egbertowillies.com/tag/democratic-debate-4/).

Recently GOP candidates have been attacking President Obama on the deal he made to bring the hostages home from Iran (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/01/18/1471397/-Obama-s-diplomacy-with-Iran-is-a-reason-to-be-proud-not-ashamed-to-be-an-American). Marco Rubio told Chuck Todd he would be like Ronald Reagan in dealing with Iran. Unfortunately Rubio is severely misremembering a Ronald Reagan who traded arms for hostages in Iran. He admitted it on national TV. Many of his National Security team were indicted. It was known as the Iran Contra scandal.

Watch a short version of the segment:
http://egbertowillies.com/2016/01/19/rachel-maddow-debunks-misremembered-ronald-reagan-for-gop-candidates-video/

That is an Amazing theory? but the hostages were released before he ended his acceptance speech? How could he possibly traded Arms of Hostages???? He was not President YET??

It seems to me that Paul, I mean Rachel is having a little trouble with history.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ronald-reagan-and-the-iran-hostage-crisis/

zelmo1234
01-19-2016, 11:10 AM
So Cigar, Now that you understand that Paul, I mean Rachel is lying? What do you think about the statement that you made?

Safety
01-19-2016, 11:12 AM
That is an Amazing theory? but the hostages were released before he ended his acceptance speech? How could he possibly traded Arms of Hostages???? He was not President YET??

It seems to me that Paul, I mean Rachel is having a little trouble with history.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ronald-reagan-and-the-iran-hostage-crisis/


.....Later, researchers found a document in the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library confirming that Casey had flown to Madrid for "unspecified reasons"--which both the Reagan and Bush administrations previously had vigorously denied. Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, who headed both the House of Representatives and governmental inquires into the "October Surprise allegations, said that the document withheld by the Bush administration "could have changed" the committees' conclusions. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Reagan-Bush-Ties-to-Iran-H-by-Robert-Parry-Bush_Evidence_Hostrage-Crisis-Iran_Iran-140409-983.html

"October surprise"

Cigar
01-19-2016, 11:12 AM
That is an Amazing theory? but the hostages were released before he ended his acceptance speech? How could he possibly traded Arms of Hostages???? He was not President YET??

It seems to me that Paul, I mean Rachel is having a little trouble with history.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ronald-reagan-and-the-iran-hostage-crisis/

That just proves you didn't watch the Video, because that was addressed and no one is giving Reagen credit for the release. :laugh:

maineman
01-19-2016, 11:14 AM
That is an Amazing theory? but the hostages were released before he ended his acceptance speech? How could he possibly traded Arms of Hostages???? He was not President YET??

It seems to me that Paul, I mean Rachel is having a little trouble with history.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ronald-reagan-and-the-iran-hostage-crisis/

actually, Iran-Contra was begun as an effort to trade arms for hostages in Lebanon, not Iran. Iran was pulling the purse strings of the Lebanese hostage holders, so they might as well have been there.

Cigar
01-19-2016, 11:16 AM
actually, Iran-Contra was begun as an effort to trade arms for hostages in Lebanon, not Iran. Iran was pulling the purse strings of the Lebanese hostage holders, so they might as well have been there.

I really don't think he even watched the Video, otherwise he wouldn't be asking stupid questions that were already answered.

del
01-19-2016, 11:17 AM
he may have to get rid of his reagan footie jammies now

the horror...

zelmo1234
01-19-2016, 11:22 AM
"October surprise"

This is an interesting theory, However; Reagan had been saying he would go after Iran for his entire campaign? And in Early October is was not certain that he even had a chance of becoming President, the polls were just starting to shift.

Iran, was having fun telling the world how they were stronger than the USA because Carter was a bit of a wimp, just like Obama.

So tell me? Why would Iran start making deals with the person that promised to wage war against them? before it was clear that he was going to be the next President

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections #United_States_presidential_election.2C_1980

zelmo1234
01-19-2016, 11:23 AM
actually, Iran-Contra was begun as an effort to trade arms for hostages in Lebanon, not Iran. Iran was pulling the purse strings of the Lebanese hostage holders, so they might as well have been there.

Correct 85-86 No issues with that.

texan
01-19-2016, 11:24 AM
So you and RM are proposing the Hostages released in 1981 were a result of trading Arms in 1985? And you are proposing this is what the republican candidates are referring to?

Safety
01-19-2016, 11:24 AM
This is an interesting theory, However; Reagan had been saying he would go after Iran for his entire campaign? And in Early October is was not certain that he even had a chance of becoming President, the polls were just starting to shift.

Iran, was having fun telling the world how they were stronger than the USA because Carter was a bit of a wimp, just like Obama.

So tell me? Why would Iran start making deals with the person that promised to wage war against them? before it was clear that he was going to be the next President

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections #United_States_presidential_election.2C_1980

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Oliver_North_mug_shot.jpg/220px-Oliver_North_mug_shot.jpg

zelmo1234
01-19-2016, 11:38 AM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Oliver_North_mug_shot.jpg/220px-Oliver_North_mug_shot.jpg

Correct the fall guy for the Iran Contra Scandal of 85-86 So are you saying that actions in 1985 caused the release of hostages in Jan. 1981

del
01-19-2016, 11:50 AM
Correct the fall guy for the Iran Contra Scandal of 85-86 So are you saying that actions in 1985 caused the release of hostages in Jan. 1981

no, stupid, the hostages were in lebanon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon_hostage_crisis

zelmo1234
01-19-2016, 11:51 AM
no, stupid, the hostages were in lebanon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon_hostage_crisis

yes Fuck Stain I have already agree to that! See 2 can act like 5 year olds and call names. But it is kind of Childish don't you think.

Safety
01-19-2016, 12:01 PM
Correct the fall guy for the Iran Contra Scandal of 85-86 So are you saying that actions in 1985 caused the release of hostages in Jan. 1981

No, but it's not hard to imagine that Reagan had people to Iran that he would be able to be more flexible once he was president...you know...kinda like how Obama had that "off the mic" comment to Putin that he would be more flexible on his second term, that played on conservative airways ad nauseam before the 2012 elections?

zelmo1234
01-19-2016, 12:06 PM
No, but it's not hard to imagine that Reagan had people to Iran that he would be able to be more flexible once he was president...you know...kinda like how Obama had that "off the mic" comment to Putin that he would be more flexible on his second term, that played on conservative airways ad nauseam before the 2012 elections?

I could be mistaken but did he not start that speech with the joke, the bombing of Iran will begin in 5 minutes.

Carter had actually removed the US naval fleet from the Gulf so it would take longer for Reagan to get them in position to begin the attacks.

Reagan was not in the mood to play nice with Iran, that is one of the reasons that he was elected.

maineman
01-19-2016, 12:09 PM
I could be mistaken but did he not start that speech with the joke, the bombing of Iran will begin in 5 minutes.

Carter had actually removed the US naval fleet from the Gulf so it would take longer for Reagan to get them in position to begin the attacks.

Reagan was not in the mood to play nice with Iran, that is one of the reasons that he was elected.

and selling them missiles was not "playing nice"?

Truth Detector
01-19-2016, 12:10 PM
No, but it's not hard to imagine that Reagan had people to Iran that he would be able to be more flexible once he was president...you know...kinda like how Obama had that "off the mic" comment to Putin that he would be more flexible on his second term, that played on conservative airways ad nauseam before the 2012 elections?

So you need to fabricate a bunch of BS to defend your false rhetoric? Predictable.

Safety
01-19-2016, 12:11 PM
I could be mistaken but did he not start that speech with the joke, the bombing of Iran will begin in 5 minutes.

Carter had actually removed the US naval fleet from the Gulf so it would take longer for Reagan to get them in position to begin the attacks.

Reagan was not in the mood to play nice with Iran, that is one of the reasons that he was elected.

I guess that speaks more to the fact that words have little effect on action. Reagan talked big, but his actions showed otherwise later, no?

Safety
01-19-2016, 12:12 PM
So you need to fabricate a bunch of BS to defend your false rhetoric? Predictable.

Well, at least there wasn't a laughing gif posted...

zelmo1234
01-19-2016, 12:14 PM
and selling them missiles was not "playing nice"?

Yes but that is back to 85-86 I don't think anyone would argue that! Paul, I mean Rachel was trying to imply the 81 situation. in my opinion. Half Truths are still lies.

zelmo1234
01-19-2016, 12:15 PM
I guess that speaks more to the fact that words have little effect on action. Reagan talked big, but his actions showed otherwise later, no?

??? Well it would have been a little rude to bomb the shit out of them after they released the Hostages? Don't you think.

As well as his dealings with Iran before the election likely set the stage for the collapse of the USSR and the ending of the Cold war.

Truth Detector
01-19-2016, 12:16 PM
and selling them missiles was not "playing nice"?

Yep; better to not sell them old hawk missles and instead, let them buy Soviet built SAMs right? ::wink wink::

After all, every nation in the ME except for Israel and Iran were being armed by the Soviets....what's one more lethally armed Islamic regime in the ME armed by the Soviets, right? Dumb.

maineman
01-19-2016, 12:31 PM
Yep; better to not sell them old hawk missles and instead, let them buy Soviet built SAMs right? ::wink wink::

After all, every nation in the ME except for Israel and Iran were being armed by the Soviets....what's one more lethally armed Islamic regime in the ME armed by the Soviets, right? Dumb.

sure. selling missiles to the assholes that stormed our embassy and held our people hostage is a totally acceptable thing to do... especially when we can illegally funnel the funds from the transfer to arm contras against the specific prohibitions of the Boland Amendment.

Great statecraft!

birddog
01-19-2016, 12:37 PM
I know Ollie North, and he's a good, patriotic man. He did the right thing, and he was receiving the proper orders with what was best at that time.

Bo-4
01-19-2016, 12:38 PM
.....and still it would be fewer than the current dunce.

I see .. remind me - which war did Obama start?

Safety
01-19-2016, 12:38 PM
I know Ollie North, and he's a good, patriotic man. He did the right thing, and he was receiving the proper orders with what was best at that time.

:rofl:

Bo-4
01-19-2016, 12:40 PM
no, stupid, the hostages were in lebanon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon_hostage_crisis

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/oops-rick-perry-smaller1.jpg

zelmo1234
01-19-2016, 12:42 PM
I see .. remind me - which war did Obama start?

Libya and Syria, both with out consent of Congress

Bo-4
01-19-2016, 12:45 PM
??? Well it would have been a little rude to bomb the shit out of them after they released the Hostages? Don't you think.

As well as his dealings with Iran before the election likely set the stage for the collapse of the USSR and the ending of the Cold war.

Don't you think one Reagan Revisionist (Little Marco) is enough for one thread?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Reagan+Revisionist&defid=5844563

zelmo1234
01-19-2016, 12:52 PM
Don't you think one Reagan Revisionist (Little Marco) is enough for one thread?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Reagan+Revisionist&defid=5844563

A conservative historian who seeks to white wash Reagen's image to sell to the public in a effort to make popular his ideas that screwed over the general public in favor of the rich.

The above is a copy from your link.

Can you please show me a comparison of how the poor and middle class did under Reagan, vs Obama.

And they tell me who the revisionist are?

Cigar
01-19-2016, 12:57 PM
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/oops-rick-perry-smaller1.jpg

Pesky Facts

maineman
01-19-2016, 12:58 PM
Libya and Syria, both with out consent of Congresswars?

YOU really think that America is AT WAR in either Syria or Libya?

Truth Detector
01-19-2016, 01:00 PM
I see .. remind me - which war did Obama start?

Another dimwit claim; that Bush started the wars. Dumb.

Yep; in liberal loony land, Iraq never invaded Kuwait without provocation and 9-11 never happened.

maineman
01-19-2016, 01:01 PM
Another dimwit claim; that Bush started the wars. Dumb.

Yep; in liberal loony land, Iraq never invaded Kuwait without provocation and 9-11 never happened.

what did 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

Cigar
01-19-2016, 01:03 PM
wars?

YOU really think that America is AT WAR in either Syria or Libya?


If Republicans were in charge, who wouldn't we be at Wat with? :laugh:

They don;t have any problem sending other people's kinds to Wars they won't pay for.

Truth Detector
01-19-2016, 01:04 PM
what did 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

Being your typical obtuse dishonest self again I see; or perhaps it's only your complete lack of reading comprehension that compels you to ask such moronic questions?

Iraq = Kuwait invasion by Hussein

Afghanistan = 9-11

Was that simplistic enough for you to comprehend?

zelmo1234
01-19-2016, 01:04 PM
what did 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

I don't know you should ask Hillary and Kerry they voted to use force in Iraq, And Nobody ever said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. They were in violation of 3 UN Resolutions.

Truth Detector
01-19-2016, 01:05 PM
If Republicans were in charge, who wouldn't we be at Wat with? :laugh:

They don;t have any problem sending other people's kinds to Wars they won't pay for.

Another incredibly stupid and historically inaccurate claim; you're quite full of BS.

The highest casualty wars we have ever engaged in were all with Democrats in charge.

But it is equally stupid and moronic to pretend that we started them.

maineman
01-19-2016, 01:15 PM
I don't know you should ask Hillary and Kerry they voted to use force in Iraq, And Nobody ever said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. They were in violation of 3 UN Resolutions.

you brought it up. I guess it was simply gratuitous. ok

Truth Detector
01-19-2016, 01:17 PM
you brought it up. I guess it was simply gratuitous. ok

Another BIG lie; you're quite full of them. You lefties are the ones trolling the thread about Lebanon and Iraq.

maineman
01-19-2016, 01:20 PM
Another dimwit claim; that Bush started the wars. Dumb.

Yep; in liberal loony land, Iraq never invaded Kuwait without provocation and 9-11 never happened.

If the war in Iraq wasn't about 9/11.... why did you feel compelled to mention it here?

Truth Detector
01-19-2016, 01:25 PM
I see .. remind me - which war did Obama start?


Another dimwit claim; that Bush started the wars. Dumb.

Yep; in liberal loony land, Iraq never invaded Kuwait without provocation and 9-11 never happened.


If the war in Iraq wasn't about 9/11.... why did you feel compelled to mention it here?

I do wish you weren't a dishonest hyper partisan leftist trying to obfuscate and troll.

maineman
01-19-2016, 01:30 PM
Answer the question. Why did you mention 9/11 in this post if it were not to somehow tie the Iraq war to 9/11? What did 9/11 have to do with the war in Iraq that Bush definitely DID start?


Yep; in liberal loony land, Iraq never invaded Kuwait without provocation and 9-11 never happened.

maineman
01-19-2016, 01:33 PM
and why, with the perpetrators of 9/11 still on the loose, would you think it was a wise use of our military assets to switch targets to Iraq? Was it because of the stockpiles of WMD's he never had? Was it because he was in cahoots with AQ and had met with them in Praque which also never happened?

Truth Detector
01-19-2016, 02:13 PM
and why, with the perpetrators of 9/11 still on the loose, would you think it was a wise use of our military assets to switch targets to Iraq?

We didn't "switch" targets; another moronic strawman. The perps was merely A perp who fled to Pakistan. Would it be wise to believe we are too incompetent to hunt a single man down while conducting operations in Iraq?

Nothing can be more ignorant than the leftist loony claim that we can't fight on two fronts. We conducated far greater operations on multiple fronts in WWII. :rollseyes:


Was it because of the stockpiles of WMD's he never had?

You have amazing HINDSIGHT; much like the other leftist loonies who were FOR the war before they were AGAINST it. Next you will be stuipidly claiming that Bush went it alone. DUMB.


Was it because he was in cahoots with AQ and had met with them in Praque which also never happened?

It was because of his unprovoked invasion of Kuwait and decade long refusal to comply with resolutions he agreed to.

Maybe if we beat that into your head a few thousand more times you might begin to comprehend the OBVIOUS?

Truth Detector
01-19-2016, 02:20 PM
Answer the question. Why did you mention 9/11 in this post if it were not to somehow tie the Iraq war to 9/11? What did 9/11 have to do with the war in Iraq that Bush definitely DID start?

See post #49 and keep reading it until the little light bulb goes on in that thick empty skull of yours.

http://i1152.photobucket.com/albums/p497/Arek56/Eatherliver.gif

zelmo1234
01-19-2016, 02:29 PM
and why, with the perpetrators of 9/11 still on the loose, would you think it was a wise use of our military assets to switch targets to Iraq? Was it because of the stockpiles of WMD's he never had? Was it because he was in cahoots with AQ and had met with them in Praque which also never happened?

It would be different if you were an Honest person, but you can't have this debate with someone that is totally and completely willing to set aside the fact that all of the Democrats on the intelligence committee, not only voted to use force in Iraq, but stood on the house and Senate floors and demanded that we take action.

When you add in all of the other world leaders that also believed that Iraq was in possession of WMD's X President Bill Clinton, who had not been out of office for a year. Then you start to get the picture. On top of this, there were WMD's that were found, just not in the quantity that we expected.

And last there were 3 UN resolutions, and we had just witnessed 3500 Americans killed by monsters with the same attitude and Sadam.

So if you were pissed at Hillary, and Obama, and Kerry and Reid as well as all of the GOP members then I would understand your position. But that is not you position, you just want to blame GWB, who would have been crucified by the left if he had not taken action against Iraq.

That is why it is so hard to have a reasonable and rational conversation with someone from the left. because the truth does not matter, only advancing the agenda.

del
01-19-2016, 03:11 PM
yes Fuck Stain I have already agree to that! See 2 can act like 5 year olds and call names. But it is kind of Childish don't you think.

then don't be stupid, stupid.

del
01-19-2016, 03:11 PM
and selling them missiles was not "playing nice"?

that's different, somehow

Peter1469
01-19-2016, 03:44 PM
Warning: discuss the topic not each other. TBs may follow.

zelmo1234
01-19-2016, 03:49 PM
then don't be stupid, stupid.

Thank you for that fascinating and thought provoking statement. I am sure we are all better for it. ????

maineman
01-19-2016, 05:41 PM
We didn't "switch" targets; another moronic strawman. The perps was merely A perp who fled to Pakistan. Would it be wise to believe we are too incompetent to hunt a single man down while conducting operations in Iraq?

Wise? I dunno. We let him slip away at Tora Bora when Dubya decided to outsource the task of bringing him out to a bunch of Afghan warlords who took a bribe from OBL and let him slide out the back way....then, we DID switch targets to Iraq and we WERE UNABLE to hunt down one single man and get our war on in Iraq simultaneously. That's just a fact.


You have amazing HINDSIGHT; much like the other leftist loonies who were FOR the war before they were AGAINST it. Next you will be stuipidly claiming that Bush went it alone. except that I was never for the war. And, while a minority of congressional democrats did support the use of force resolution - something I was disappointed in - Bush was the man who sat alone at the top and he DID go it alone and make the decision to start a war that did not need to be fought... and the 37K American casualties are on him.


It was because of his unprovoked invasion of Kuwait and decade long refusal to comply with resolutions he agreed to.


that was all window dressing. Bush told us on more than one occasion that our sole reason for invading Iraq was to disarm Saddam of his stockpiles of WMD's. And Bush was in SUCH a hurry that he kicked Hans Blix and his inspectors OUT of Iraq so that he could invade.... rather than sit back for a few months and have Blix tell him what we all now know: that Saddam didn't HAVE stockpiles of WMD's and that the reason for invading was no longer an issue. Then, maybe we'd have saved a couple of trillion dollars and avoided 37K casualties AND Dubya COULD have been the president that caught OBL. I'd much rather have had THAT outcome than the one we got.

Truth Detector
01-20-2016, 12:19 PM
Wise? I dunno. We let him slip away at Tora Bora when Dubya decided to outsource the task of bringing him out to a bunch of Afghan warlords who took a bribe from OBL and let him slide out the back way....then, we DID switch targets to Iraq and we WERE UNABLE to hunt down one single man and get our war on in Iraq simultaneously. That's just a fact.

That is nothing more than a bunch of false BS; why is it you feel so compelled to lie all the time and fabricate your own version of events? Is it because the facts don’t support the blithering nonsense you constantly erupt with?

No one LET HIM SLIP AWAY; what a moronic claim; it’s not a fact.


except that I was never for the war. And, while a minority of congressional democrats did support the use of force resolution -

Another pile of nonsense; it wasn’t a minority and they were DEMANDING something be done. There comments are at the end of this post because you appear to have a memory problem to match you prolific ability to fabricate strawmen.


- something I was disappointed in –

No one cares.


Bush was the man who sat alone at the top and he DID go it alone and make the decision to start a war that did not need to be fought...

Another amazing massive pile of crap; the statement that Bush was alone has to be not only the biggest leftist lie you erupt with, but amazingly stupid and uninformed.

There were 36 other nations and many leaders of those nations that made the identical claims that DEMOCRATIC leaders and Bush made.

The only one’s going it alone are leftist who erupt with this idiotic drivel.


... and the 37K American casualties are on him.

Of course they are; because in your loony myopic world, terrorists, tyrants and Communists are never to blame! Dumb.


that was all window dressing. Bush told us on more than one occasion that our sole reason for invading Iraq was to disarm Saddam of his stockpiles of WMD's.

That is another pile of fabricated BS. He never stated that this was our SOLE reason for invading and the Joint Resolution clearly spells that out and only 320 or so words of this 1,100 plus word declaration contain the words “WMD.”

The FACT is that had Saddam NEVER invaded Kuwait, we would have never been forced to enforce the resolutions he avoided and ignored for more than a decade.

But in loony liberal land, Saddam could have been reasoned with. ::wink wink::


And Bush was in SUCH a hurry that he kicked Hans Blix and his inspectors OUT of Iraq so that he could invade....

Another moronic false claim; that there was a rush to war. Saddam had been defying the inept BillyBob Clinton for his entire Presidency. But I am amused that a decade of defiance by a tyrant and an invasion that took a year and three months to begin is somehow called “a hurry”. :Biglaugh:

2002
29 January
US President George Bush identifies Iraq – along with Iran and North Korea – as an “axis of evil” in his State of the Union address
14 May
UN Security Council revamps the 11-year-old sanctions against Iraq to introduce “smart sanctions” targeted at military equipment
July 5
Talks in Vienna between the UN and Iraq break down without agreement
1 August
Iraq invites Hans Blix, UN chief weapons inspector, to Baghdad as a possible step towards resumption of arms inspections
12 September
President Bush tells world leaders at a UN General Assembly session to confront the “grave and gathering danger” of Iraq – or become “irrelevant”
16 September
Iraq accepts 'unconditional’ return of UN inspectors
24 September
Britain publishes dossier outlining the threat posed by Iraq. It includes the “45 minute claim” – that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which could be used within 45 minutes of him giving an order
16 October
Iraq renews offer to UN weapons inspectors, after 'referendum’ gives Saddam another seven-year term as president with 100 per cent of the vote
8 November
The UN Security Council approves Resolution 1441, a US-British resolution requiring Iraq to reinstate weapons inspectors after a four year absence
13 November
Iraq’s government accepts the UN resolution
18 November
Dr Blix leads weapons inspectors back to Baghdad to relaunch search for weapons of mass destruction, backed by the UN resolution
27 November
The weapons inspectors start inspections, visiting two sites, and thank the Iraqis for their co-operation but do not comment on findings
2 December
Britain publishes a second dossier, documenting human rights abuses in Iraq
7 December
Iraq hands over a 12,000-page weapons declaration as required by resolution 1441. The document is meant to be a current and complete account of all its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programmes
18 December
Ministry of Defence reveals that ships are being chartered to carry troops and heavy armour to the Gulf
19 December
The United States accuses Baghdad of being in “material breach” of the UN resolution after Dr Blix said the Iraqi arms declaration contains little new information about its weapons of mass destruction capability
2003
9 January
Dr Blix tells the Security Council that there are still “many unanswered questions” about Iraq’s weapons programmes but that inspectors had not “found any smoking guns” that might trigger war
11 January
A British naval task force leaves for the Gulf headed by the HMS Ark Royal aircraft carrier
16 January
UN weapons inspectors find 12 warheads designed to carry chemical weapons. The inspectors believe the warheads were not accounted for in Iraq’s 12,000 page submission. Washington described the warheads as a “smouldering, not smoking gun”
27 January
UN inspectors present evidence to the Security Council about their search for WMD and Iraqi co-operation with resolution 1441. The report is seized on by the US and UK as proof that Iraq is not disarming, while other states argue that the inspectors need to be given more time
29 January
In his State of the Union address, President Bush announces that he is ready to attack Iraq, even without a UN mandate
14 February
Dr Blix reports to the UN again. He says Iraq must do more to prove it has no WMD
15 February
Anti-war demonstrations held in London and other cities around the world
24 February
The US, Great Britain and Spain submit a proposed resolution to UN Security Council stating Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441
26 February
Mr Blair suffers parliamentary rebellion over handling of the crisis when 121 Labour MPs vote against him
4 March
Gordon Brown, the chancellor, makes clear his support for war by saying he is prepared to 'spend what it takes’ to disarm Iraq
5 March
Foreign ministers of France, Russia and Germany release joint declaration stating that they will 'not allow’ a resolution authorizing military action to pass the UN security council
7 March
Dr Blix reports that Iraq has accelerated its co-operation but says inspectors need more time to verify Iraq’s compliance
10 March
France and Russia announce that they are ready to veto a new UN resolution which gives Iraq seven days to disarm. French President Jacques Chirac says his country would vote against any resolution that contained an ultimatum leading to war until the weapons inspectors in Iraq said they could do no more
16 March
President Bush, Mr Blair and the Spanish Premier Jose Maria Aznar meet in the Azores. They set a deadline of the end of Monday 17 March for the Security Council to back the US/UK resolution demanding immediate Iraqi disarmament. Mr Bush called it a “moment of truth for the world”
17 March
UK’s ambassador to the UN says the diplomatic process on Iraq has ended and announces the withdrawal of a draft resolution co-sponsored by the US and Spain; arms inspectors evacuate; Robin Cook, leader of the House of Commons, resigns from cabinet; Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, confirms in a written parliamentary statement that war on Iraq would be legal on the grounds of existing UN resolutions; President Bush gives Saddam and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq or face war
20 March
Invasion of Iraq begins
9 April
Baghdad falls to US forces
2 May
President Bush declares victory in Iraq in speech on aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.


rather than sit back for a few months and have Blix tell him what we all now know: that Saddam didn't HAVE stockpiles of WMD's and that the reason for invading was no longer an issue.

We sat back for a decade while Saddam thumbed his nose at us; only idiots think another decade would have given us results.

We only know he didn’t have them, or removed them, after the invasion. Hindsight is an amazing thing. But using it for political purposes and gain is repugnant and beneath the dignity of anyone with a shred of integrity.


Then, maybe we'd have saved a couple of trillion dollars and avoided 37K casualties AND Dubya COULD have been the president that caught OBL. I'd much rather have had THAT outcome than the one we got.

Yep; in Liberal loony land, Saddam wasn’t a defiant tyrant and it appears a convenient omission to realize that he didn’t even allow Blix and the inspectors back in until he saw the massive military buildup along his borders.

Carry on Commander; it is apparent that honesty is not your forte’. But your dishonesty does match your inability to comprehend or acknowledge facts.

No wonder you are such a prolific fabricator of strawman claims.

Truth Detector
01-20-2016, 12:20 PM
What Democrats said about WMDs:
"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators 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 th! e 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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

maineman
01-20-2016, 12:24 PM
any democratic office holders in that list claim Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's?

Cigar
01-20-2016, 12:25 PM
Not Try ... but No Cigar :biglaugh:

Truth Detector
01-20-2016, 12:26 PM
any democratic office holders in that list claim Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's?

You're not a very good liar; but keep pretending you're stupid....it's fun to watch.

Cigar
01-20-2016, 12:28 PM
Is there a Full Moon today or is it just that time of the month?

maineman
01-20-2016, 12:34 PM
You're not a very good liar; but keep pretending you're stupid....it's fun to watch.

you always revert to insults when you cannot answer the simple question. In your list of democratic quotes, were there any democratic office holders who stated that Saddam had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction? Why run away from it?

Tahuyaman
01-20-2016, 07:05 PM
Rachel Maddow debunks misremembered Ronald Reagan for GOP candidates
Back during the Reagan era she still liked dudes, right?

maineman
01-20-2016, 07:16 PM
you always revert to insults when you cannot answer the simple question. In your list of democratic quotes, were there any democratic office holders who stated that Saddam had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction? Why run away from it?

:::crickets chirping:::

Peter1469
01-20-2016, 11:37 PM
We are talking about Paul right? :shocked:

maineman
01-20-2016, 11:41 PM
We are talking about Paul right?

truth deflector veered away and posted that shopworn old list of quotes from democrats about Saddam's programs. I simply asked him one question in clarification, and, oddly enough, he seems to have exited stage left.

zelmo1234
01-21-2016, 02:34 AM
Rachel Maddow debunks misremembered Ronald Reagan for GOP candidates


Back during the Reagan era she still liked dudes, right?

Actually? he was a dude back then??

zelmo1234
01-21-2016, 02:36 AM
any democratic office holders in that list claim Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's?

How about Bill Clinton. He thought they had them? He had only been out of office for a few months?

And the list above? they were office holders most of them on the intelligence committee, they had access the the same intel that GWB had.

maineman
01-21-2016, 09:45 AM
How about Bill Clinton. He thought they had them? He had only been out of office for a few months?

And the list above? they were office holders most of them on the intelligence committee, they had access the the same intel that GWB had.
thought? are you a fucking mind reader? How the hell do you know what they THOUGHT? NONE of the quotes of all democratic office holders on that list said that he had stockpiles of WMD's.

PolWatch
01-21-2016, 09:53 AM
Cigar - you were right....but the order of attacks was off....they got to you before MSNBC!

First: Attack Rachel Maddow
Second: Attack MSNBC
Third: Attack Cigar

Bo-4
01-21-2016, 09:57 AM
@Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294) - you were right....but the order of attacks was off....they got to you before MSNBC!

First: Attack Rachel Maddow
Second: Attack MSNBC
Third: Attack Cigar

And BINGO was his name oh!

:rofl:

Truth Detector
01-21-2016, 11:06 AM
you always revert to insults when you cannot answer the simple question. In your list of democratic quotes, were there any democratic office holders who stated that Saddam had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction? Why run away from it?

It really is getting harder to take your hyper partisan buffoonery seriously. Every one of those quotes were from OFFICE holders. How dense are you??

Common
01-21-2016, 11:07 AM
Rachel Maddow is the worst of Foxnews on the left.

Cigar
01-21-2016, 11:07 AM
It really is getting harder to take your hyper partisan buffoonery seriously. Every one of those quotes were from OFFICE holders. How dense are you??

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/1e/1eb1b63935d9768e06081db17bed8534d7080168ccc80dbaae a0307a79c8cc2b.jpg

Truth Detector
01-21-2016, 11:07 AM
any democratic office holders in that list claim Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's?

This is nothing more than retarded. How were ANY of those on that list NOT office holders? Good lord dude, WTF is your problem? Seriously.

Cigar
01-21-2016, 11:09 AM
Rachel Maddow is the worst of Foxnews on the left.

Yea ... she is good at getting to you guys ...

That's why I like her.

Truth Detector
01-21-2016, 11:09 AM
truth deflector veered away and posted that shopworn old list of quotes from democrats about Saddam's programs. I simply asked him one question in clarification, and, oddly enough, he seems to have exited stage left.

What would a hyper partisan liar like you know about the "truth?"

Asking for clarification from a list of Democratic leaders as to whether they are "office holders" is borderline retarded; no, it actually IS retarded.

Dumb.

Truth Detector
01-21-2016, 11:16 AM
thought? are you a $#@!ing mind reader? How the hell do you know what they THOUGHT? NONE of the quotes of all democratic office holders on that list said that he had stockpiles of WMD's.

Seriously??? How freaking DENSE are you? Here; this time I will use a RED CRAYON.

There's zero ambiguity here unless you are a mindless kool-aid swilling dupe on steroids.

"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
[b]-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003[

maineman
01-21-2016, 11:19 AM
your command of the language is absolutely atrocious. None of those in office claimed stockpiles of WMD's.

repeating the same quotes that do NOT prove your case will not, magically, prove your case.

Truth Detector
01-21-2016, 11:19 AM
Yea ... she is good at getting to you guys ...

That's why I like her.

It's hard for someone who is NEVER watched to get to anyone. Perhaps that is why MSNBC is dead last in the ratings game? :biglaugh:

Truth Detector
01-21-2016, 11:27 AM
your command of the language is absolutely atrocious. None of those in office claimed stockpiles of WMD's.

The only one suffering from a severe lack of a command of the language and a serious deficiency in honesty would be you. It's lunacy to make the claim you have about these quotes; there's no other word for it... outright lunacy.


repeating the same quotes that do NOT prove your case will not, magically, prove your case.

Of course it won't; I am dealing with a dishonest hyper partisan America hating fool who declares that the OBVIOUS doesn't exist because he is clenching his eyes shut to the facts and stomping his feet like a little kid in a temper tantrum.

maineman
01-21-2016, 11:57 AM
The only one suffering from a severe lack of a command of the language and a serious deficiency in honesty would be you. It's lunacy to make the claim you have about these quotes; there's no other word for it... outright lunacy.



Of course it won't; I am dealing with a dishonest hyper partisan America hating fool who declares that the OBVIOUS doesn't exist because he is clenching his eyes shut to the facts and stomping his feet like a little kid in a temper tantrum.

if any of those quotes actually mentioned "stockpiles", I am sure you would have showed it to me by now.

It's getting really boring waiting for you.

Truth Detector
01-21-2016, 12:06 PM
if any of those quotes actually mentioned "stockpiles", I am sure you would have showed it to me by now.

I find it stunning that you think they don't. But then, when you are being obtuse, dishonest and wallowing in denial, one has to engage in verbal semantics to avoid reality and the facts. I get it; you don't like having your banal partisan buffoonery constantly thrown back into your face. I don't blame you for being this dishonest; after all, you are defending an ideology based on a massive lie.


It's getting really boring waiting for you.

It’s not half as boring as your complete lack of honesty and dignity.

But unlike you, I actually have a life and don't spend the whole damned day here clinging to every buffoonish eruption you come up with.

This is why it is impossible for you to comprehend reality or facts:

http://freelancechristianitydotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/head_up_ass_liberal_zoom3-300x2871.jpg

valley ranch
01-21-2016, 12:13 PM
Ronald Reagan a great guy and a pretty good president. Compared to several others he was great.

Anyone who thinks this isn't so, does so for their own reasons.

I like him and I think most American do.

Tahuyaman
01-21-2016, 12:37 PM
Seriously??? How freaking DENSE are you? Here; this time I will use a RED CRAYON.

There's zero ambiguity here unless you are a mindless kool-aid swilling dupe on steroids.

"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
[b]-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003[

ENOUGH! No More facts for crying out loud! But, did you notice, none of those quotes contained the word "stockpile". That changes everything....... Right?

maineman
01-22-2016, 12:55 PM
I find it stunning that you think they don't.


as I said... just point me to one of those quotes from a democratic office holder which mentions "STOCKPILES".

and STOCKPILES ARE important. The urgency to invade Iraq - to kick Hans Blix OUT of Iraq so we could get our war on - was based on two lies: One... that Saddam absolutely and undoubtedly possessed STOCKPILES of WMD's, and Two.... that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden and could, therefore, provide some of those WMD's that he had STOCKPILED to Al Qaeda for them to put into the luggage compartment of the very next jetliner headed to America.

You can't give the "capacity to develop weapons", or "programs", or "the refusal to end programs", or "the development of programs", or "searching for programs", or the "embarkation of a crash course to build up capabilities", or a "developing capacity" to a terrrorist to load onto a plane. What you CAN give to a terrorist to load on a plane is a weapon of mass destruction that you have many of - I mean, you wouldn't want to give him your only one - you'd need a.... what's the word I'm looking for?.... you'd need a...a... STOCKPILE, that's it. Those STOCKPILES.... the supposed absolute certainty of STOCKPILES gave Dubya the urgency to not wait for Blix to tell him what he really didn't want to hear... that Saddam didn't HAVE any STOCKPILES and he didn't really have any vibrant productive WMD development programs either.

Trillions of dollars wasted... 37 thousand US casualties.... to disarm Saddam of the STOCKPILES he didn't even have. You all should be SO proud.

Truth Detector
01-22-2016, 01:41 PM
as I said... just point me to one of those quotes from a democratic office holder which mentions "STOCKPILES".

and STOCKPILES ARE important. The urgency to invade Iraq - to kick Hans Blix OUT of Iraq so we could get our war on - was based on two lies: One... that Saddam absolutely and undoubtedly possessed STOCKPILES of WMD's, and Two.... that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden and could, therefore, provide some of those WMD's that he had STOCKPILED to Al Qaeda for them to put into the luggage compartment of the very next jetliner headed to America.

You can't give the "capacity to develop weapons", or "programs", or "the refusal to end programs", or "the development of programs", or "searching for programs", or the "embarkation of a crash course to build up capabilities", or a "developing capacity" to a terrrorist to load onto a plane. What you CAN give to a terrorist to load on a plane is a weapon of mass destruction that you have many of - I mean, you wouldn't want to give him your only one - you'd need a.... what's the word I'm looking for?.... you'd need a...a... STOCKPILE, that's it. Those STOCKPILES.... the supposed absolute certainty of STOCKPILES gave Dubya the urgency to not wait for Blix to tell him what he really didn't want to hear... that Saddam didn't HAVE any STOCKPILES and he didn't really have any vibrant productive WMD development programs either.

Trillions of dollars wasted... 37 thousand US casualties.... to disarm Saddam of the STOCKPILES he didn't even have. You all should be SO proud.

Translation for the moronic screed above:

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd226/Wyzard63/PDHeadInSand.gif

maineman
01-22-2016, 02:01 PM
cat got your tongue? you can always tell when truth deflector is caught... he posts a silly picture.

maineman
01-22-2016, 02:03 PM
and I'd stick my head in the sand if I were you. I don't think I could face any patriotic American after supporting an unnecessary action that cost us 37K US casualties either.

Truth Detector
01-22-2016, 02:15 PM
cat got your tongue? you can always tell when truth deflector is caught... he posts a silly picture.

I'm hardly at a loss for words; I just know when it is time to get off the never ending circle of stupidity you seem to enjoy wallowing in.

There is a lot of truth in the statement; "never argue with an idiot because they will only try to drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."


and I'd stick my head in the sand if I were you. I don't think I could face any patriotic American after supporting an unnecessary action that cost us 37K US casualties either.

There you go again with that insufferably stupid claim; but then, when it comes to insufferably stupid claims, you have few peers.

Yep, those casualties were all caused by Bush. Not the terrorists and tyrants trying to defend tyranny and death. Dumb.

maineman
01-22-2016, 02:23 PM
rather than "translate" it with a silly picture, why not try to debate post #90 point by point?

None of the 37K would have died on a battlefield of a war than never was started.

Truth Detector
01-22-2016, 02:30 PM
rather than "translate" it with a silly picture, why not try to debate post #90 point by point?

Rather than pretending to be a dishonest hyper partisan Liberal, why not admit your grasp of the English language is at the most basic level claiming that the entire debate should be semantical? Dumb.


None of the 37K would have died on a battlefield of a war than never was started.

37K died on the battlefield? Still making up your crap as you go I see.

We didn't start the war Komrade; that was in Saddam's hands. Still making up your crap as you go I see.

maineman
01-22-2016, 02:30 PM
:yawn:

Tahuyaman
01-23-2016, 03:03 PM
The only thing Maddow could possibly debunk is the rumor that she's actually a man.

Peter1469
01-23-2016, 03:06 PM
The only thing Maddow could possibly debunk is the rumor that she's actually a man.

Paul, I believe is her real name.

Tahuyaman
01-24-2016, 11:08 PM
rather than "translate" it with a silly picture, why not try to debate post #90 point by point?

None of the 37K would have died on a battlefield of a war than never was started.

37,000 Americans have been killed in Iraq?

maineman
01-24-2016, 11:11 PM
Dead and wounded. 37k casualties.