Jeb Bush again changes Iraq answer

If Saddam was not threat, if he had no WMD and never ever would again, then why did he need to be contained?

And no he was not going to be contained as the sanctions were on the verge of being lifted as he bribed his way through the UN.

Again why if he was no threat and everyone knew he was no threat and everyone knew he did not have any WMD nor would he ever again have WMD?

Oh that canard, Bush wanted Saddam gone and had he left there would have been no war. Saddam was not going to leave and could not be trusted in ANY negotiation, he had already made a deal and was violating it on a regular basis, the breath of violations we only learned after we removed him.

Utter conjecture, their desire of a nuke had nothing to do with Bush in particular.

See above

Well his sons would have taken over and things would not have gotten better and in fact worse.

What deal? They didn't want a deal and the deal that was being made was the sanctions being lifted and the UN resolutions going the wayside leaving Saddam to his own devices.

No comparison, we are not containing either, and yes had we been able to oust the NK leadership and prevent their obtaining a nuclear weapon the world would be a much better place.

So again, if as is claimed Saddam was no threat, had no WMD and the entire world except for Bush knew it, why did he need to be contained. Would you have supported sanctions and containment against a country and it's leader who was no threat to anyone?

These are both great examples of how internationally supported containment costs relatively little,. and promotes political stability.[/QUOTE]

 

Ah, yes, the ususal collection of throwaway quotes.

Your claim that the intelligence we had supported a war is false, and was discredited a very long time ago. I have no idea why you keep repeating it.

 

It's not false. You are aware we DID actually find cashes of many chemical weapons, or, WMDs, right? We even had exposed soldiers.

Your "brushing off" of the Facts stated above, is merely a childish deflection.

If you aren't mature enough to debate, move along.

 

[/QUOTE]
The majority of Democrats in Congress NEVER denied that Saddam was a serious threat before the invasion.

It wasn't until John Kerry made his famous flip flop to opposing the war, that it became popular with the left. Which is what cost Kerry the election.

 

[/QUOTE]

The containment regime would have only lasted another year or two. Contrary to your repeated claim, the Iraqis were anxious to make a deal in the fall of 2002. It was Bush who was not.

The fact that North Korea and Iran both accellerated their nuclear programs considerably after Bush's blustering 2002 SOTU speech cannot be denied.

You have no idea what Sadaam's sons would have done, or if they would have even survived their father's passing.

We are not on the border between North and South Korea as an exercise in containment??????

Tell me another one!

 

Leading Democrats took the charge right along side of Bush for this war. Kerry lead the way! Here's a great article from 2003:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/02/dems-f08.html

Please, tell me your unbiased thoughts on Kerry's quote in bold. No deflections. What are your direct thoughts on John Kerry's facts about that led to his full support of the war.

 

Every word is FACT.

You may not like it, but it's ALL the truth.

- - - Updated - - -

These liberal babies don't want to hear facts. And they throw tantrums every time they lose arguments.

 

This does not change the fact that Iraq was Mr Bush's war.

As you know, the Bush admistration deliberatly scheduled the vote on the Authorization to Use Military Force a week before the Congressional mid term elections in order to exert maximum political pressure on anyone with any doubts or resevations. It's telling to note that his father did the exact opposite and removed the politics from a similar vote in 1990.

Kerry was obviously being political. He had already voted for Bush's resolution, so he was hung on that vote.

Of course, he would later disavow it and admit that it was a mistake, something you seem to have convenently left out or forgot.

 

Irrelevant. He is not being presidential. On the Republican side, it matters. Your side will put any (*)(*)(*)(*)ing retard into office, but here we go by who is a better LEADER. Jeb is not a leader. He can't even make up his mind. Unless Walker, Cruz or Rubio are murdered, one of them WILL be the nominee and one of them WILL be the next president.

When you come up with a credible source, rather than some OPINION RAG, try again. You liberals continue to LIE about Republicans wanting to CUT Sosha Curity benefits, which is not what EITHER candidate said in those LYING biased rags you cited.
Jeb and Christie are not going to be nominated. It's between Cruz, Walker and Rubio, three who are more qualified than ANY Democrat today.

The only ones who would be signing a bill to cut off Sosha Curity benefits to those earning $200,000 or over would be DEMOCRATS, the CLASS ENVY CROWD.

 

How about you deal with your wars one at a time.

The US is fighting in five countries and losing. Maybe it's time to stop blaming the pasty, whining about the initial invasion, Obama's politicized premature withdrawal and work together to end this one before taking on Obama's mistakes?

Wait...."work together".....

I know, stupid of me to think Americans can work together anymore. You are each other's enemies

 

Yes, Bush was President. However, he had full support from a large amount of the most favorited Democrats.

First off, you just blatantly lied :

Kerry came out in support of the war BEFORE he voted. Remember, he made many speeches speaking out against Saddam and his WMDs prior to the 2003 vote. I cited you one from before the vote when he says "I WILL BE VOTING to give my full support".

 

Irrelevant. You can get weapons in a US prison.

That's a (*)(*)(*)(*)ING LIE.

Tripping over weapons.

Irrelevant. We also had ZERO control over our borders, which means cocaine, illegal aliens and VX gas bombs capable of wiping out an entire mall of people can come through here without even going through customs.

Nobody said he was an imminent threat. You left wingers LIED about Republicans making that statement. No Republican made it.
Usama Bin Laden was not an imminent threat for the five years he put the 9-11 operation together in the United States right under Bill Clinton's felonius nose. A non-imminent threat LEVELED THE (*)(*)(*)(*)ING WORLD TRADE CENTER.

The only IDIOTS are the TRAITORS who changed their stories after authorizing Bush's military action.

Are you out of your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing mind? The newspapers and mass media DID NOTHING BUT (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) ABOUT THIS FROM DAY ONE.

THEY WERE NOT TOLD LIES.

Only Democrats should be run out of office for abject stupidity. They are the only ones who are stupid, (as well as their retarded voters.)

Nobody lied.

Barak Obama should be sitting in jail for treason. He CREATED ISIS.

 

Writing "FACT" in all caps does not make it so.

You repeatedly assert that there was a connection between Al Quida and Sadaam Hussein.

This is false, and always was false. It was discredited thoroughly over a dozen years ago. So thoroughly in fact, that the Bush White House had to mount a spin campaign to try and pretend that they never suggested such a connection in the first place (actually it was one of their key insinuations).

If you want to make assertions, be prepared to be fact checked and have your claims repudiated. The facts are all in, and the record does not support any of your claims.

 

Understood. A retard liberal saying something is not a fact does not make it so.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/04/saddam_and_alqaeda_1.html
Claims that there were no links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda are wrong. Documents just released by the Pentagon prove it.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/saddam-al-qaeda-did-collaborate-documents-show/29746/
CAIRO, Egypt - A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp
The answer to that last question is simple: lots. The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998. More disturbing, according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush, the Agency has "irrefutable evidence" that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda. "It's a lock," says this source. Other administration officials are a bit more circumspect, noting that the intelligence may have come from a single source. Still, four sources spread across the national security hierarchy have confirmed the payment.
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2004/07/02/link-between-saddam-al-qaeda/
BILL O'REILLY HOST: In "Impact Segment" tonight, The Factor is on record as believing Saddam Hussein was linked up with Al Qaeda through a man named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. As you may know, U.S. authorities will pay $25 million if you can bring that guy to justice. He's believed to be behind much of the terror in Iraq, including the beheadings of civilians.
http://townhall.com/columnists/wthomassmithjr/2006/01/11/the_saddam-al_qaeda_connection
The recent revelation by Stephen F. Hayes in The Weekly Standard that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had ties to – and was training thousands of – terrorists in the years prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, is actually no revelation at all. It is being treated as such by many Americans, cautiously praised by the White House, and dismissed as groundless by those opposed to the war.

Don’t get me wrong: Hayes’ assertions are on the mark. But those with connections to the U.S. special operations community have long-known that the pre-war link between Saddam and the Al Qaeda terrorist network is not only a fact, but one that had to be addressed as part of the global war on terror.

As usual, you have lost yet ANOTHER argument. The only people denying the Saddam Al Qaeda connection are extremist left wing Democrat National Committee OPINION RAGS.

What is so funny is the fact that I SMACKED DOWN LIBERALS TEN YEARS AGO USING SIMILAR LINKS. It's like liberals are just too stupid to accept the facts.

We already knew that.

 

Actually, it isn't irrelevant. It's all in how he will have to raise the money and what entities he will have to work with. He has a lot more influence over his SuperPac than he will over a 501c4.

I can't disagree with your other points, thought.

 

I lied? You asked me to comment on a specific Kerry quote in an article you linked. That quote dated from several months AFTER Kerry voted for that Authorization to use Military Force.

Beyond that, I have no clue what point you're trying to make,. Perhaps you're calender challenged????

 

OK, so now you've discovered the pitch tab. AND the bold tab.

Sorry, but as I explained to another one of the Bush dead ender bretheren, parsed retreads of old and long discredited claims won't hold up.

I should note that all the blogs and journals you cite actively promoted the ginned up intelligence claims and promoted claims that were nearly all false. The Weekly Standard was edited by Bill Kristol a full fledged neocon and an associate of the PNAC. American Thinker? Seriously????? Oddly, you cite Bill O'Reilly as a news source, while other conservatives on another thread today dismiss him as an entertainer!

Your see, I dont have to rely on

, I can rely on the US Senate, and a host of other reliable sources.

You've reverted to regurgitating spin pieces from right wing media that have long been discredited.

Here is what the Senate Intelligence Committee Concluded:

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775

 

I said Clinton let Bin Laden go.

Your response....

I said.......

Your response........

What does Iraq, Saddam an Al Queda have to do with Clinton letting Bin Laden go? You're killin me Tom!

 

They are historical quotes, now show us the evidence that was given to Bush which proved what the Clinton administration was saying was a lie.

 

"Intel gathered over a decade"? Nice.

Except, all but one of your quotes come from 1998, years before the war and at a time when what was going on inside Iraq was not well known. Specifically, this dodges the intel that came from the 2002/2003 inspections. Plus, it dodges the fact that we were effective in preventing Saddam from moving his decrepit military inside his own borders.

The "intel" the American public got was found to be totally disgusting by Colin Powell, as it was cooked for worst case assessment by the administration that wanted war to start with.

The aluminum tubes, the mobile chemical labs, the drones equipped to spread WMDs, Condi Rice's mushroom clouds - ALL false. The weekly or even daily reports from Ollie North of WMD finds - ALL false.

The American public got sold a war on false pretenses, conquering a nation that was under our control and turning it into a world center for terrorism and government perpetrated humanitarian atrocity for which we have no solution. And, doing so at the cost of thousands of US lives, hundreds of thousands of lives total, and by now costing us trillions - lost opportunity on a scale that can hardly be imagined.

"Largest blunder in US history" really doesn't convey the enormity.

 

Sorry, I took your response in the context of the false argument that other consevatives are trying make by recycling old stories.

One has to remember that 9/11 lie three years in the future in 1998, and Bin Laden was just becoming a person of interest.

Clinton was a lot more interested in the rule of law than Bush or Cheney were, and we had nothing we could charge Bin Laden with.

In hindsight, it looks like a tragic lost opportunity. But Clinton's successor let Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora AFTER 9/11,. and all but stopped looking for him.

 

Well that is a change from your statement we could have kept him contained forever or until he died and was no more.

And again, if as you and others on the left are claiming, he was no threat to anyone and would never be one again, then why was it necessary to contain him?

No they were not and deals they did make they violated routinely, what don't you understand about they could not be trusted to abide by any agreements?

The fact that North Korea and Iran both accellerated their nuclear programs considerably after Bush's blustering 2002 SOTU speech cannot be denied.

Yes we have a very good idea of what they would have done because we know what they had done already, having them take over Iraq was not an option.

No, we aren't containing anyone. We're preventing one side from invading the other and using one as a base of operations in the region. But we did not have to remove a despot leader in SK in order to do so. To bad Obama blew it in Iraq and we had no such presence to keep our enemies out.

 

Is that so? Here's a VERY lengthy speech to the Senate Floor where Liberal John Kerry tears into Saddam and why he's GOING to vote to authorize the use of military force. This is the day BEFORE the vote.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1240102/posts

Here's a piece from his rant:

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=001987 ---Here's the day of the actual vote. Maybe your basic math skills can kick in.

 

You would have supported a military attack into Pakistan then? And no OBL was an issue throughout the Clinton administration starting with the first 9/11 attack. Clinton also attacked Iraq, now if Saddam was no threat to anyone why did Clinton attack him, seems that would be illegal just as you are insinuating the Bush attack was illegal.

 

Yes, you Lied:

You said that quote was AFTER the vote, here's the quote again, in context, from the article SPEECH I just cited of John Kerry on the Senate Floor BEFORE the vote :

- - - Updated - - -

Ummm, the United States never stopped gathering intelligence after the gulf war....lol