"It is those very same individuals that today have done a complete 180 on the issue and therefore have destroyed their creditability. Clinton is perhaps not as bad as the rest because he has indeed backed President Bush on a few occasions as far as this war with Iraq and terrorism in general. Hell the guy has to since it is he who first started this thing in the 90’s, it is he and many of his democrat friends in Congress that wanted him to INVADE Iraq and called for regime change.

It was not President Bush who first uttered the words regime change in Iraq it was Clinton and other democrats that were spouting that way before President Bush…"


Actually, it was republicans that started it. GHW did it first, then these guys (link below) convinced Clinton that it needed to be done. In the end, Clinton still passed on to the Bush admin that Osama was the single greatest threat.

Link

 

Notice a few key names that signed that letter:

Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard L. Armitage

And they say that they were not ithcing for a reason to attack Saddam before 9/11.

 

*dives under a table awaiting the fallout*

 

Here is some popcorn for you Rock Pick, just don't chew any of the gum you find under tha table.

 

So basically you're saying that the Klintoon administration easily caved in to what a past administration convinced them to do? If that is the case, then I would be ashamed to admit I supported him. Either stand on your own 2 feet, or please sit down.

 

you must have misread somethine somewhere. the point is the the democratic administration did not lead the charge on this, it started with a various republicans. the democratic administration did not act on this advice, the Bush administration did. the democrats come out looking good because no matter what they SAID they did not ACT on information and suppositions tha proved to be false. by false i mean that we did not find the huge stock piles of WMD that were claimed before the war. one coffee can full of dust that might be a bioweapon does not equal all the crap that people were claiming Iraq had prior to the war.

 

Think these people played a hand into what Clinton did?

What the liberals really say about Iraq:


Senator John F. Kerry (liberal democrat):

“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 miscalculation 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…”
Jan. 23, 2003

“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.”
Oct. 9, 2002

Senator Ted Kennedy (liberal democrat)

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sept. 27, 2002

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State

“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Nov. 10, 1999

“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.”
Feb 18, 1998

Senator Hillary Clinton (liberal democrat)

“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 deep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Oct. 10, 2002

Ex Vice President Al Gore (liberal democrat)
Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Sept. 23, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Sept. 23, 2002


Prior to 9/11


Ex President Clinton (liberal democrat)

“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.”
Feb. 4 1998

“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.”
Feb. 4 1998

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John F. Kerry and others

“We 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.”
Oct. 9 1998

If those people are so clueless then perhaps they should be permanently disqualified from every holding public office…

 

What?

This did start with a democratic President, a liberal one at that named Clinton. Study history my friend and you will have the knowledge to succeed…


What?

Ahhhh, the typical liberal philosophy, it ONLY matters what we say not what we do…

The democrats come out looking like morons. Read my above post on the actually statements they made. They have lost their creditability because they continue to lie and deceive and put innocent Americans including children at risk all in the name of gaining power…


What?

It has been proven true that Iraq did indeed have WMD’S. The liberals that flopped on the issue were stating there is NO WMD’S in Iraq. Did you not get all your past talking points? You see now they can’t revert back to their original statements they made in the Clinton administration and they can’t go back to the flipped statement of NO WMD’S so there running around lost. I mean what does one do once they flipped then flopped.

All the people you refer to are the ENTIRE free world, those associated with the United Nations, the vast majority of democrats including Clinton, Clinton (both of them) Kerry, Kennedy, Terry the mouth piece, yes all these people along with the vast majority of their friends and family completely agreed that Iraq had WMD’S they did so up until around 2002 or early 2003…

Study history my friend and you will have the knowledge to succeed…

 

The new democratic campaign slogan, for Kerry and friends:

”It don’t matter what we say because we ain’t gonna do it anyway”

 

When Kennedy said he "knew" something that should have been a clue something was amiss! Of course we could add a lot of conservatives to that list also. Damn those liberals for listening to PNAC

Seriously, those guys scare me. You already know how I feel about the US taking on the role of World Dominator. No one has ever done it succesfully, and everyone of them suffered greatly when their reign was over, except for England.

TUFF FORD, sorry there were no fireworks for you, you'll have to wait for this weekend.

 

I can't believe that there can be so many "drones" in our country. We all know we're right with our opinions because we saw it on the news. I don't know how any of you can accept any of it as "fact". I don't care where it's coming from. I try to get information from many different fronts. I here so much contradiction that I don't take any of it as gospel. Don't people see that they are being spoon fed "spin"? Yah, some fat guy makes a movie and it's "the truth". Give me a friggen break. Are people that gullible? I'll bet Kerry hopes so.

Guess what? I'm not voting for Bush. Nope. Not voting for Kerry either. I'm hopeing that the rest of you hash it out. It's a lose-lose situation in my eyes. The lesser of the evils would be to let Bush finish what he started. He can only be there another four years. But I'm not voting for Bush, so that's not for me to decide. I'm just so sick of this great big circus that we call our government. It might as well be some stupid reality show on prime time TV. I am dissapointed at what appears to me to be people taking sides based on what they are being told by the media. Isn't it clear to everyone else that every thing we are being told is out of context so to meet the agenda of thoes saying it? It seems to me that this is being done far more by the left this time around. This is clearly evident by that fat guys movie. If Kerry wins this election because of that movie it will show how sad a country we live in. What, people are to busy to think? Oh, don't worry, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw will tell it like it is. Right!

All this bickering and fighting from the two sides. Will people ever bicker and fight about the fact thet there are only two sides to choose from? Dumb and Dumber. That's what we've got. They put on one he11 of a show, and it appears that America is watching it like some prime time TV reality show. No, I guess America won't get sick of this corrupt, theatrical two party system we have. It's far to entertaining. What a joke!

What was the topic of this thread? Sorry, I didn't make it into the other "political" disscussion before it got closed. I had to get my two cents in some where.

 

So Wittom, what do you propose? Has the dumbing down of America already taken place? Did Hitler have it right all along? Should we have elected old "big ears" a few years ago and broke the two party monopoly? If you won't vote for Bush or Kerry, where does that leave you? Without a vote, opinion or both?

Actually, you are wasting time. You should be over at:

https://www.f150online.com/forums/sh...5&pagenumber=3

before the thread is closed, deleted, etc. and jpdadeo gets banned.....

 

I will be voting. Not for a canidate, or even a party. I will be voting for an alternative. I don't believe that we have had a viable third party canidate. I would like to see a third (or fourth or fith) party canidate get a greater percentage so that people are awhere that some of us would like to be represented by people who bring new ideals into the mix. Then perhaps we can get broader representation. It would have to start at the bottom, as it has. I don't expect that we will have a viable third choice in '08. But if we are ever to have more options additional parties need to start building now. I can't be the only on discontent with the direction the two party system has gone. We are a huge country with so many people espousing so many different ideals. I think we would all benefit if there were broader representation.

I don't necessarilly think that America is being "dumbed down". I just think that people, with busy lives, feel the need to be educated about the political situation in our country. The problem is most of us don't have the time to properly educate our selves and feel that what we get is enough for us to be in the know. I've tried to educate my self but in the process have realized how little I know, and how little the popular sources are saying.......

 

Wit,

I was just jerkin' your chain a bit. I tend to agree with you. I have always been amazed that such a large country with a high literacy rate and a great communication system has only two parties (basically) to represent us. Ole' Ralphy boy made and continues to make some noise from a third party candidate, and Perot gave it a fling. They brought a third party to the forefront of the news, but it fades just as fast. Nothing lasting and substantial.

John

 

i am sick and tired of all your bull***** and how right you think you are. i don't think your arrogant tone will change, but how about you put up or shut up. prove to us that they found WMD in Iraq since we went to war and tore that country to shreds. not that they had WMDs 5 or 10 years ago, but that the result of us going to war was finding the WMDs we claimed they had in the months leading up to the war. go on, prove it. no excuses, no crap about "well BrewMaster you are just a small minded liberal who doesn't understand...blah...blah...blah." No personal attacks on me for asking you to put up your evidence, just prove it. No BS, no commentary, just proof. We're all interested to see.