Posted on 02/22/2016 8:13:01 PM PST by Citizen Zed
All we need to know is that Bush and his top people, starting with Vice President Dick Cheney, were too busy in their first eight months in office to bother about al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Too busy doing what? Among other things, they were too busy looking for an excuse to overthrow Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Bush's father, George H. W. Bush, had left Saddam in power after sending the U.S. military to reverse Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991. But the elder Bush and successor Bill Clinton enforced killer economic sanctions, on the pretext of finding weapons of mass destruction but actually in hopes of driving Saddam from power. Saddam wouldn't cooperate in his own regime change, however, so Bush Jr., Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and their neoconservative brain trust were determined to complete the mission.
Because of this obsession, warnings from the CIA and counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke about al-Qaeda, which had previously attacked U.S. government assets and the World Trade Center in the 1990s, fell on deaf ears, despite growing signs that Bin Laden was determined to strike the U.S. Even the prospect of aircraft hijackings was raised.
Clarke wrote in his book, Against All Enemies, that when he finally managed to get a cabinet-level meeting on al-Qaeda, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz objected that "I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden." Clarke responded, "We are talking about a network of terrorist organizations called al-Qaeda, that happens to be led by bin Laden, and we are talking about that network because it and it alone poses an immediate and serious threat to the United States."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicago.suntimes.com ...
If Trump is 100 percent right on this one
then Code Pinko Trump is 100 percent right on this one!
Code Pinko and Trump duplicate each other on this one.
If you don’t like it, take it up with Code Pink—
or Trump.
Now the Jew Hate comes out.
Oh that’s just rich, Bush’s fault. Never mind the fact that the United States Policy was by hook or crook to remove Sadaam, his sons and the rest of the cabal by peace if possible and by force if necessary.
You can read all about it yourself. It’s not as if Bill Clinton and all 100 Senators didn’t urge this as our policy. But why let a little fact get in the way and under the lens of 911, I think it was time to say “Enough” and end our cessation of hostilities. The terms of the cessation of hostilities had 28 mandates for the Iraqi government, 17 of which they regularly violated and shot at our airplanes damn near every week.
So Buh-Bye
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 H.R. 4655 (PL 105-338) was passed October 5, 1998, in the U.S. House of Representatives by an overwhelming majority. On October 7, the companion bill, S. 2525, passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate, “establishing a program [to] support a transition to democracy in Iraq.” [1]
Speaking on behalf of the bill in the Senate, Trent Lott said:
“The United States has many means at its disposal to support the liberation of Iraq. At the height of the Cold War, we supported freedom fighters In Asia, Africa and Latin America willing to fight and die for a democratic future. We can and should do the same now in Iraq.
Statement on Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
October 31, 1998
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.” This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:
The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and lawabiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian makeup. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.
The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council’s efforts to keep the current regime’s behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participatory political system that will include all of Iraq’s diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq’s current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq’s prohibited weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House, October 31, 1998.
two wars (started by Obama’s predecessor) and the calamitous malfunctioning of key industries — finance, housing, health care, energy and more. Yet, instead of an effort to come together to meet what are national crises, the right-wing echo chamber talks only about bringing the president down, and the Republican leaders embrace and parrot the extreme anger of the right. The so-called moderates duck and cover. No more mavericks allowed.
And here is a PDF of the Law: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ338.105.pdf
First, Bill Clinton and the entire Senate, that’s all 100 senators, signed the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. The state goal was to overthrow Saddam Insane and his entire regime and replace it with a democratic government.
That is a fact:
The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:
1. committed various and significant violations of International Law,
2. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and
3. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.
See here for a quick Wiki that makes it a short read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
Don’t forget to read the part where Clinton states categorically what Iraq admitted to.
Bottom line we knew as did the French, Germans, Italians, South African Nations, N. Korea(our intel on them) and many others what Saddam was attempting to acquire and what he already had
WHICH INCLUDED:
550 METRIC TONS of YELLOW CAKE. USED FOR MAKING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
MORE THAN 500 SARIN AND MUSTARD GAS LACED BOMBS.
There is plenty more but lets look at some of the lefts vaunted leaders and what they had to say at various times:
Let’s start with Al Gore criticizing George Bush 41 for ignoring Iraq’s ties to terrorism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64
Or how about this hit from 1998 Al Gore: No Doubt Saddam’s Weapons Are Grave Threat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFBl0fnMUVc&feature=related
Hey what about a guy that was once in Vietnam John Kerry saying he found WMD in Iraq
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH93UlGHBfk&feature=related
Hey even Nancy Pelosi claims Iraq had WMD and she seems pretty unequivocal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwDJRBOsj78&feature=related
Here is a greatest hits of Democrats who in no certain terms absolutely claimed Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. They made these claims on more than one occasion and with specificity. The quotes are from Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards:
3 minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjcofMFHsA&feature=related
Here is a 6 minute video of other Democrats on Iraq’s WMD and how it would be irresponsible to leave Saddam unchecked;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts&feature=fvw
So who is the liar? Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Madeline Albright, et al?
Surely they knew Saddam had WMD. Bill Clinton did after all launch missiles on Iraq in an attempt to destroy some of them.
The only relevance here is that Trump hurt himself badly in the eyes of many who looked kindly at him
when he parroted the lefty Code Pinko line about “Bush lied.”
He should have left that crap to the lefties.
They own it.
But now Trump does too.
An idiotic move on his part.
“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.
“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.
” 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 Sens. 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 seeing and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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 s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (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. “[W]ithout 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 has 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, M
He immediately alienated a significant portion of the electorate, which despises Code Pink.
Jews work to advance their interests, they do it very effectively. To recognize that fact is not “Jew Hatred” it’s just recognizing and acknowledging facts.
It’s just like recognizing that blacks commit a vastly disproportionate amount of crime, saying so is just stating a fact.
So, get off the PC bandwagon, and realize that not everything is “racist” “sexist” “homophobic” or “anti-Semitic” sometimes it is just the statement of a fact.
Your Jew Hate is a fact.
[[Starting to sound like DU around here.]]
Exactly, anyone with 1/2 q brain and an ounce of ambition and incentive could look up the Duelfer report and also look to the wiki leaks for proof that saddam did infact have htem AND was usign htem against civilians killing 10’s of 1000’s with chemicals- many many times he used them on iranians, on kurds etc- and there were thousands of deciliters of bacilli and the mans ot activate it at a moment’s notice- the lie that htere were no wm d’s is almsot as blatant a lie as ‘man-caused global warming’ is- The left have gotten away with these lies for far too long- and to top it off, it wasn’t even hte only reason nor hte major reason for goign to war with that monster/modern day hitler who HAD to be stopped! We had peopel escaping from irac and testifying to hte horrors sadam was committing in irac, and they convinced ALMOST EVERYONE in congress thaqt goign to war to remove this heinous monster was hte right thing to do- not to mention the fact that saddam had violated un rules many times and was actively firing on our airmen in the are- another blatant provocation and act of war-
It’s just too bad so many peopel have fallen for the lie that there were none there- there were plenty- and they were continually foudn for years after with NO reportign by the msm beca use it contradicted their no wm d’s lie!
If you don't have an exit strategy the war never ends... until your party is thrown out by the voters in favor of a guy who has an exit strategy.
How do you think we got stuck with Obama?
Correct. Even the NYT recently ran a story about us collecting over 5,000 chemical weapons.
Except we weren't, not legally speaking. War was never declared. Slipping into war without congressmen and senators ever having to go on the record as supporting it has caused nothing but disaster. It's also unconstitutional, as the Constitution clearly gives the power to declare war to congress, not to the president.
If George H. W. Bush had been forced to make his case for war against Iraq to congress it either wouldn't have happened or the war aims would have been much more clearly defined from the start.
But it's spilled milk now, no point crying over it. The question is: How do we recover from the damage done to the GOP? Trump's answer is cut it loose, admit Bush screwed up and change the subject.
If you don't think Bush screwed up it's for the best to keep quiet about it. We all saw how much good defending his brother did for Jeb.
That is nitpicking. There was a ceasefire condition at the time and we were enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraq. As for “spilled milk now;” the subject of the thread and my reply is about the situation that existed when GW Bush was president.
Voters had a chance to send a message to Code Pink in 2006, 2008 and 2012. They could support the GOP in 2006, which backed Bush 100%, or Hillary in the 2008 primaries, who voted for the Iraq war, or McCain in the general election, who was the war's strongest booster in the Senate and wanted another one with Iran. Or for Santorum in the 2012 primaries. Or even for Romney, who was more pro-war than Obama.
What was the message?
By the way, this is entirely a political question. What's more popular post-2006? Supporting the Bush policy in Iraq or opposing it? I believe Obama's victory over Hillary was at least half due to his opposition to the war in Iraq. I know that as the GOP has spent less time defending the war and focusing on bread and butter issues like taxes, spending, health care reform and principles like consitutional rights they've gained ground.
Why do you think defending Bush's policies or even resuming them would be a winning issue in 2016?
IMHO after 9-11 Bush should have normalized relations with Iraq's secular butcher Saddam in exchange for help neutralizing Islamist terror in the region.
If any country should have been invaded it was Saudi Arabia. And yeah, take the oil. If they won't play nice the sheiks don't get to be rich anymore.
None of these guys have clean hands. We either deal with them or resign ourselves to occupying the entire region and governing it directly or through puppet governments.
The middle east will never be democratic and free. Not in this century, anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.