PsyOps
Pixelated
Slaphappy… Allow me to spell this out for you. We went to war over WMD. If you had been paying attention (which appears you haven’t) you would know WMD have been found.slaphappynmd said:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
The rationale for going to war was supported by republicans and democrats (please look up and read the Iraq War Resolution and who signed it (I’m not going to do your homework for you). Some of the most outspoken anti-Iraq War critics were the most vocal about how dangerous Saddam was with his WMD; this rhetoric going back before Bush was even president. So they CAN’T claim he lied to them; actually the flip-flop and calling Bush a liar on the democrat’s part is the lie. I can provide you quote after quote from Kerry, Gore, H. Clinton, B. Clinton, Kennedy, Byrd, Berger, Boxer, Edwards, etc, etc… if you’d like. Democrats were talking incessantly about how dangerous Saddam was but guess who they weren’t talking about? Al Qaeda. Now the chatter has flipped 180 degrees.
Now that Saddam has been removed and his regime gone, the rationale for Iraq has changed. Saddam is no longer a threat. The threat has changed thus the justification for staying there has changed. It’s called “CHANGING COURSE” (something you democrats keep demanding). So, it only makes sense to revise our reason for being there. But not to democrats. WMD is not longer a reason because the person we were concerned about regarding WMD no longer exists. Fighting the terrorists and spreading that all-so-evil democracy is now the reason.
Once again, another left-wing propaganda piece aimed doing one thing: criticize Bush, while at the same time providing nothing in the line of solutions. The president should be criticized for the handling of this war. But no criticism should be devoid of solutions. When you complain without providing your own fix for the problem you become part of the problem rather than the solution, and deemed a whiner. And that's what the left is at this point in history: a bunch of whiners.
S
slaphappynmd
Guest
PsyOps said:
If you knew any better, Foxnews is a skewed propaganda machine with very little fact backing any of their stories. Try again!
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Perhaps I may be of help here...
...slap;
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686
This will explain everything.
slaphappynmd said:
...slap;
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686
This will explain everything.
Tom Sawyer
Member
If you knew any better, Foxnews is a skewed propaganda machine with very little fact backing any of their stories. Try again!
Now thats funny----Your link come from the Associated press and yahoo and you call Fox news a skewed propaganda machine.
We are talking AP her . The Arab press. Give me a break LMAO.
Now thats funny----Your link come from the Associated press and yahoo and you call Fox news a skewed propaganda machine.
We are talking AP her . The Arab press. Give me a break LMAO.
Mikeinsmd
New Member
Once again you show us what a tard you are!! YOU try again!!slaphappynmd said:
What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD
Source with links to all other sources
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"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 | Source
"[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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
Last edited:
PsyOps
Pixelated
Well how about that propaganda machine MSNBC:slaphappynmd said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15134719/site/newsweek/
From that article: "The search has not been entirely fruitless. The DIA has discovered another 300 old chemical shells lying around the war-torn country. That's in addition to the 500 sarin shells mentioned in a declassified Pentagon intelligence report revealed..."
And then is the propaganda machine CBS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/23/politics/main1747450.shtml
Of course CBS (a definite left wing propaganda machine along with MSNBC) reports they, not surpirsingly, find annonymous "intel officials" to downplay the usability of these weapons, while never mentioning that the WMD should not have been there in the first place. The only thing the left-wing propaganda piece can talk about is how dangerous these weapons weren't, totally dismissing the fact that they even existed, weren't supposed to be there, and have an intended purpose of being used. THEY WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE! Talk about propaganda!
You can try to talk your way out of this all you want Slap by calling Fox a propaganda machine, but you can't deny these weapons (regardless of their lethality) were supposed to be destroyed. And according the left (on many accounts) they were destroyed by the Clinton bombings of Iraq. WRONG! There will be more classified reports declassified of WMD findings in Iraq. They are there and the left-wing propaganda machines (the mainstream press) will do all they can to make Americans don't hear about it. Thank God for Fox and the truth.
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
PsyOps said:
You also realize the weapons they foud were buried underground 20 years ago. Saddam Hussein didn't even know where these things were.
That said, FOX News isn't the only source to report very small quantities of WMD have been found.
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
FromTexas said:Come on now, Mike. You know Bush's faulty intellligence is the one that mislead all those Dems and made them say those things in 1998 and 1999.
Actually, you're right. I do recall Clinton attacking Iraq. I remember conservatives like myself saying he was trying to distract attention from Monica and all.
I think the Republicans have forgotten he also attacked Afghanistan.
dustin
UAIOE
One of my officer's just recently talked to a close friend who had been to a funeral for one of his buddies. My officer's close friend's buddy was killed in Iraq. Not by the IED, but by the Anthrax laced to the IED. He was quarentined away from others but still passed away ~5 days after the hit.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Andy... Your contention that 1) these WMD were buried underground for 20 years and 2) Saddam didn’t know about them is purely a guess. Perhaps a source for this info would solidify your assertion. Yes, the WMD were 20 years old but there is no evidence that they were underground for that period of time. And to assert that Saddam didn’t know about them… What, did Saddam say this? If so, you believe him?AndyMarquisLIVE said:
PsyOps
Pixelated
I happen the think the Clinton bombings on Iraq were completely justified, however utterly insufficient. Many claimed these bombings destroyed Saddam's WMD but yet the rhetoric from the left and right and from the UN about Saddam's WMD continued. And then there is the all-too-familiar UNR1441 unanimously ratified by the UNSC. So claim, if you want, how much the republicans have forgotten about Clinton’s actions; the democrats are even more forgetful about their own words and actions.AndyMarquisLIVE said:
Quote After Quote
Psyops: They don't care, they simply do not care.
They have already alleged that I am a moron, an idiot, full of myself and the latest is that because I served in a combat zone doesn't mean I know everything about the war. What other ammo do they have to impeach my qualified opinion?
If they did care in typical left, humanistic righteousness, they would have been marching and demanding answers at all the deaths to terrorism during the 1900s when the intelligence community budget was cut in half and their authority truncated.
They don't care.
If you want to upset them and get some teenage reaction-corroborate your argument with documented factual evidence,
They do not care-and this reflects 90 percent of the Democratic Party herd. If they did care they would want a full accounting of why the increasing bloodshed during the 1900s, and at the same time China Gate and at the same time the worst lapses in national security-but they do not care. They do not care that China contributed heavily to Clinton’s campaign, something right out of the Sopranos and the Communist playbook. Monica Lewinsky was nothing more an example of his character; the real story is the malfeasance in office. The seeds planted that bloomed almost as soon as Bush took office. They have a huge propaganda machine working to ensure you don’t question the Democrats or scrutinize.
They didn't care then, and they don’t care now. Abdication of the country, surrender of its sovereignty and demoralization of every patriot by calling them a moron and a right wing whacko to demean service in a combat zone is the absolute sworn goal.
I have no use for the lot of them. I truly believe that party has been taken over by extreme leftists bent on liquidation of this country. The former Mayor of New York City, Ed Koch, a Democrat (who reminds me of my late Democrat parents) inasmuch has expressed his own fears about this.
What do I know? I only know the Baghdad metropolitan area and those who have influence there. A friend of mine just went to work for one of the interior ministers there. But it isn’t Democrat Doublespeak so it will be emasculated by emotion and frustrated passions.
Psyops: They don't care, they simply do not care.
They have already alleged that I am a moron, an idiot, full of myself and the latest is that because I served in a combat zone doesn't mean I know everything about the war. What other ammo do they have to impeach my qualified opinion?
If they did care in typical left, humanistic righteousness, they would have been marching and demanding answers at all the deaths to terrorism during the 1900s when the intelligence community budget was cut in half and their authority truncated.
They don't care.
If you want to upset them and get some teenage reaction-corroborate your argument with documented factual evidence,
They do not care-and this reflects 90 percent of the Democratic Party herd. If they did care they would want a full accounting of why the increasing bloodshed during the 1900s, and at the same time China Gate and at the same time the worst lapses in national security-but they do not care. They do not care that China contributed heavily to Clinton’s campaign, something right out of the Sopranos and the Communist playbook. Monica Lewinsky was nothing more an example of his character; the real story is the malfeasance in office. The seeds planted that bloomed almost as soon as Bush took office. They have a huge propaganda machine working to ensure you don’t question the Democrats or scrutinize.
They didn't care then, and they don’t care now. Abdication of the country, surrender of its sovereignty and demoralization of every patriot by calling them a moron and a right wing whacko to demean service in a combat zone is the absolute sworn goal.
I have no use for the lot of them. I truly believe that party has been taken over by extreme leftists bent on liquidation of this country. The former Mayor of New York City, Ed Koch, a Democrat (who reminds me of my late Democrat parents) inasmuch has expressed his own fears about this.
What do I know? I only know the Baghdad metropolitan area and those who have influence there. A friend of mine just went to work for one of the interior ministers there. But it isn’t Democrat Doublespeak so it will be emasculated by emotion and frustrated passions.
PsyOps said:
Mikeinsmd
New Member
Vincenzo, you will find that the libbys cannot hold their own in here. As you stated in your post, they cannot refute facts and provide none of their own.vincenzo4 said:
There are a few folks in here that would welcome a good debate but most of the libbys prefer to "hit & run" with a factless posts. They are useless whiners at best.
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
Mikeinsmd said:Andy, He lobbed a handfull of cruise missles at empty buildings. Hardly constitutes an "attack".
Kevin clinched the Busch championship and is still contending in cup.
NASCAR screwed him over last night. They held him after the caution at the end of pit road and put him two laps down. Once more, the rules are completely different when it comes to Kevin Harvick and Jimmie Johnson.
I think he'll win at Martinsville though.