Berkeley, CA Wants Marines Out

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Your problem is that you can't get it through your head that it was not ONLY Bush saying that Saddam had WMDs.

The following has been circulating in the Internet for several years now and there is no way that you will ever be able to convince anyone here that you have never before seen it.

Snopes.com http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp has verified the veracity of these quotes from your Democrat heroes some of which were stated long before Bush ever took office. I have flagged those in RED. Are they liars also? Were they lying then or are they lying now?



THESE ARE YOUR LIBERAL DEMOCRATS SAYING THESE THINGS AND YET BUSH IS A LIAR?


Nonono. They are innocents, duped by big oil, the Republican propaganda machine, and misdirection by Saddam Hussein.

Doesn't really matter what facts you choose to put here. Some folks just can't comprehend anything less than what they choose to believe. These are the same folks who move to Berkeley for the 'free speech' and then do their best to silence any dissenting viewpoint. These are the same types of people who claim that they are atheist, and then do their very best to belittle and degrade anyone belonging to anything even remotely resembling 'mainstream' Christianity. We all know this type of person. They are the ones who will tell you to 'turn the other cheek' when they are the ones doing the slapping...
 

ResearchMonkey

Well-Known Member
"Thank God for Dead Soldiers" is a pretty sick Con statement don't you think?

fred_phelps_idiotic_911_message.bmp


Again.....point?

Has it EVER occured to you that Christians are also in the liberal-a-palooza.
 

spike

New Member
Your problem is that you can't get it through your head that it was not ONLY Bush saying that Saddam had WMDs.

Who's idea was it to invade? Try again.

I don't absolve any of the democrats that fell for this bullshit but you want to forgive someone for blatantly misleading you.

Clinton and the U.N. believed that Hussein had some weapons of mass destruction, in the form of limited stockpiles of chemical and perhaps some biological weapons. But they did not believe them to be an immediate threat, and did not believe they would leave the country; they believed, in short, that Hussein was contained and could continue to be contained.

That is light-years away from what Bush was pushing:

1. Bush and his people claimed that Hussein had massive stockpiles of WMD (Bush: "This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions." Rumsfeld: "He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons"), far more than Clinton or the U.N. ever believed.

2. Furthermore, Bush and Cheney strenuously asserted that Hussein was six months away from completing a nuclear weapon, or possibly had developed one already. (Bush on a fictional 1998 IAEA report: "...a report came out of the . . . IAEA, that they [Iraqis] were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need." Cheney: "On the nuclear question, many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire such weapons fairly soon.") The fact is, neither Clinton nor the U.N. believed that Hussein had a nuclear program that was anywhere close to developing nukes, nor did they ever claim that Hussein was buying uranium or using aluminum tubes for his nuclear program.

3. Bush also claimed that Hussein had ties with al Qaeda (Cheney continues with that claim to this day), and that Hussein, who jealously guarded his resources and did not share with anyone, would readily hand over nukes to al Qaeda. (Bush: "Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud," "Saddam Hussein . . . is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon," and "The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.") Neither Clinton nor the U.N. believed that Hussein was in league with al Qaeda, or that Hussein would share any of his weapons with them. They were aware that Hussein and al Qaeda were religiously and ideologically at odds, that they hated each other, and were not in alliance.

So, to say that Bush was not out of line to make his claims because Clinton and the U.N. believed the same is outrageous, a deliberate attempt to mislead. Don't believe a word.

http://www.blogd.com/archives/000732.html
 

spike

New Member
Nonono. They are innocents, duped by big oil, the Republican propaganda machine, and misdirection by Saddam Hussein.

Doesn't really matter what facts you choose to put here. Some folks just can't comprehend anything less than what they choose to believe. These are the same folks who move to Berkeley for the 'free speech' and then do their best to silence any dissenting viewpoint. These are the same types of people who claim that they are atheist, and then do their very best to belittle and degrade anyone belonging to anything even remotely resembling 'mainstream' Christianity. We all know this type of person. They are the ones who will tell you to 'turn the other cheek' when they are the ones doing the slapping...

Wow, you live in some fantasy world where you just make up shit and act like it's true.
 

paul_valaru

100% Pure Canadian Beef
Many liberals are christians. "God hates Fags" is a conservative platform however.

WHAT!!!!

that is like saying Nazi-ism is a german platform, just because nazis started in germany doesn't mean all germans are nazis, or even like them.

Just cause phelps might be conservative, doesn't mean other conservatives are like him, or that other conservatives even like him, and also he has run for the democratic party.
 

spike

New Member
I didn't say all conservatives think God Hates Fags. You will generally only hear conservatives making that claim though.

Just like saying Nazi-ism was a German platform doesn't mean all Germans are Nazis.

Neo-Nazis and white supremacists also tend to be conservative.

Point being Cerise likes to posts some pictures of some radical protesters who's sign he doesn't like and say "All libs are like this" so then it's pretty easy to point out the lack of logic by countering with some picture of some conservative gay-basher, neo-nazi, white supremacists, etc and say "all Cons are like this".
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Who's idea was it to invade? Try again.

Someone who had the guts and the wherewithall to finally do what 17 UN resolutions had threatened to do for the past 12 years. Which resolution was going to do the trick? Which one was Saddam going to finally abide by? The 18th? 25th? 99th? 277th?

As to whose idea it was to invade, you cannot discount these people:

"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 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

"[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 Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"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

"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

"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

"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
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Someone who had the guts and the wherewithall to finally do what 17 UN resolutions had threatened to do for the past 12 years. Which resolution was going to do the trick? Which one was Saddam going to finally abide by? The 18th? 25th? 99th? 277th?

As to whose idea it was to invade, you cannot discount these people:

*snip*

Plenty of blame to go around. Unfortunately, there are still quite a few people 'stuck on stupid', and wish to blame one person. Here's the deal on that...and I'll put it in bold, so even the most dense of people can, at least, be given the correct information...The President asked Congress to authorize the use of force. Without said authorization, this whole thing would never have taken place. If Congress was so strongly against this military action, they should've voted against it from the beginning instead of putting lives at risk for something they really didn't believe in. If they (Congress) had done so, this wouldn't be an issue. Guess it gives the small-minded something to blamestorm and bitch about, though.
 

Cerise

Well-Known Member
It is just too bizarre that these freaks can't acknowledge an imminent problem, but they can indicate who they think might solve something that has been an echo in their brain because they have been looking for "change" and it's ABBB dammit. ("Can you spare some change?")
 

spike

New Member
Someone who had the guts and the wherewithall to finally do what 17 UN resolutions had threatened to do for the past 12 years. Which resolution was going to do the trick? Which one was Saddam going to finally abide by? The 18th? 25th? 99th? 277th?

Israel has more resolutions against them. Why not invade them? Why not waste countless taxpayer dollars and lives in farces all over enforcing resolutions?

As to whose idea it was to invade, you cannot discount these people:

None of them made us invade.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Transcript of vote on House Joint Resolution 114.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10342&position=all

S10342 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE October 10, 2002
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the cloture motion is vitiated on Senate Joint Resolution 45.

The clerk will read the joint resolution for the third time.

The joint resolution was read the third time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of House Joint Resolution 114.

The clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 114) to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read House Joint Resolution 114 for a third time.

The joint resolution was read the third time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

The result was announced—yeas 77, nays 23, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 237 Leg.]
YEAS—77
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS—23
Akaka
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Chafee
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Durbin
Feingold
Graham
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Sarbanes
Stabenow
Wellstone
Wyden

The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 114) was passed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the preamble is agreed to.
 

spike

New Member
They were the cheering section which voted to authorize the president to use all means possible to depose Saddam. WITHOUT THEIR VOTE THE WAR COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED.

Without the commander-in-chief this war would not have been waged. But hey, we might have a pres soon who did the right thing and voted against it.

That'll be nice.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Yea. Then Iran can have Iraq (it's too late to return it to the Hussein gang)
 

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
But hey, we might have a pres soon who did the right thing and voted against it.

That'll be nice.

Really? I seem to remember that Hillary voted for it, McCain voted for it, and Obama wasn't in the senate yet to vote one way or the other. Unless there's a dark horse candidate I'm not aware of that you predict to sweep in and win the election.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Without the commander-in-chief this war would not have been waged.

You seem not to understand how this thing called the Constitution works. Without the approval of a majority of Congress he could not wage this war whether he wanted to or not. He got that approval.

But hey, we might have a pres soon who did the right thing and voted against it.

WTF??? Did you miss something here? What "pres" might that be?

Clinton voted FOR the war and Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time the vote was taken. McCain voted FOR the war.

The only way the democrats want us out of this war is under Bush's watch. That way they can hang it on him. Once they inherit it they will continue like they were never against it.

None of these people, all of whom voted against the resolution, are running for president and the ones in red aren't even in office:

Akaka
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Chafee
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Durbin
Feingold
Graham
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Sarbanes
Stabenow
Wellstone
Wyden

You are some piece of work.
 

spike

New Member
You seem not to understand how this thing called the Constitution works. Without the approval of a majority of Congress he could not wage this war whether he wanted to or not. He got that approval.


I don't think you understand how this works Jim. Bush is the commander-in-chief. Are you actually trying to absolve him from all responsibility in the Iraq farce> Really :laugh:

WTF??? Did you miss something here? What "pres" might that be?

Clinton voted FOR the war and Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time the vote was taken. McCain voted FOR the war.

Ron Paul voted against it and had some great thoughts on the matter.

Obama has also been against the war fromt he start.

Barack Obama, 46, has shown similar gumption. On Oct. 26, 2002, he gave a speech in Chicago opposing the invasion of Iraq.

While Obama rightly acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was "a bad guy," he also pointed out, "Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors. ... I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tucker/stories/2008/02/01/tucked_0203.html

The only way the democrats want us out of this war is under Bush's watch. That way they can hang it on him. Once they inherit it they will continue like they were never against it.

Bullshit.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
I don't think you understand how this works Jim. Bush is the commander-in-chief. Are you actually trying to absolve him from all responsibility in the Iraq farce> Really :laugh:

He can't do it without the Congress approving it. Are you trying to absolve the Congress from all responsibility?

Ron Paul voted against it and had some great thoughts on the matter.

Ron Paul doesn't have a Chinaman's chance in Hell of getting anywhere near the Oval Office even through an invitation.

Obama has also been against the war fromt he start.

Bullshit.

I hope your new Saint Obama gets elected so I can throw that one back in your face when he continues the war unabated using every excuse he can find not to get out. The Democrats will continue to prosecute this war and, unlike myself, you will be disappointed.
 

spike

New Member
He can't do it without the Congress approving it. Are you trying to absolve the Congress from all responsibility?

Hell no, I'm just putting the primary responsibility where it belongs. With the commander-in-chief.

Ron Paul doesn't have a Chinaman's chance in Hell of getting anywhere near the Oval Office even through an invitation.

I know, he's such a superior choice to the current admin or the other rep candidates that he couldn't make it.

I hope your new Saint Obama gets elected so I can throw that one back in your face when he continues the war unabated using every excuse he can find not to get out.

I'm glad your supporting Obama. Go ahead and keep track of this thread so we can all see you eat crow when your baseless predictions don't materialize.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top