'Bush's war'

[ronalddennis]

The next time you hear the expression 'Bush's war' remember this video!!!
And note that there is no 'opinion,' just direct video.


click link below

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

[sfcgragg]

Thank's for the post my friend... It's just another bullet in the weapon to battle to disarm the misinformation :M249SAW:

[03_SHOOTER]

For those who might have trouble downloading the video:

“Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk 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, and it is a threat against which we must, and will stand firm.”
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Town Hall Meeting, Columbus Ohio, February 18, 1998.

“…or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made.”
President Bill Clinton, Remarks to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Pentagon, February 17, 1998

“There are such things as international outlaws, I’m not sure China is one, but I’m quite sure that Iran and Iraq are.”
DNC Chairman Howard Dean, CBC/PBS “The Editors” January 31, 1998

“He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983.”
National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, Town Hall Meeting, Columbus Ohio, February 18, 1998

“Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there’s no question about that...”
Representative Nancy Pelosi, NBC “Meet The Press”, November 17, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next 5 years…we also should remember we have always underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Senator Jay Rockefeller, remarks on the Senate Floor, October 10, 2002

“We know that he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability, there is a real debate how far off that is, whether it’s a matter of years, or whether it’s a matter of less than that, and so there’s much that we don’t know.”
Senator Joe Biden, NBC “Meet The Press”, August 4, 2002

“Saddam Hussein in effect has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think that the President is approaching this in the right fashion.”
Senator Harry Reid, CNN “Inside Politics” September 18, 2002

When asked “do you believe that we could have disarmament without regime change”, the answer “I doubt it. …I can support the President. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think that it’s in the long term interest of our national security.”
Senator Hillary Clinton, NBC “Meet The Press” September 15, 2002

“Serving on the Intelligence Committee, and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it’s just that simple.”
Former Senator John Edwards, MSNBC “Buchanan & Press” January 7, 2003

“I support the President’s efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein. I think he was right on in his speech tonight, the lessons we learned following September the 11th were that we can’t wait to be attacked again, particularly when it involves weapons of mass destruction, so regrettably Saddam has not done the right thing, which is to disarm, and we’re left with no alternative but to take action,
Senator Evan Bayh, FoxNews “The O’Reilly Factor”, March 17, 2003

“When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support…while it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize my decisions concerning the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to re-write the history of how that war began…these critics are fully aware that a bi-partisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence communities judgments relating to Iraq’s weapons programs…as our troops fight a ruthless enemy that is determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders, who voted to send them to war, continue to stand behind them.”
President George Bush, Veterans Day Commemorative, November 11, 2005

[Woody]

All very well but he had no effective weapons of mass destruction .Even the ones he used in the Iraq/Iran war were pretty rubbish .History of chemical warfare its a bogey man weapon that never acheives half of what it
claims to do .
With the threat of mushroom clouds over baghdad if he did use them against any country that could retaliate threat remains pretty non exsistent
Only biological weapon attack against the USA came from one of your own researchers .Waste of money and lives.

[DaveIn3D]

All very well but he had no effective weapons of mass destruction .Even the ones he used in the Iraq/Iran war were pretty rubbish .History of chemical warfare its a bogey man weapon that never acheives half of what it
claims to do .
With the threat of mushroom clouds over baghdad if he did use them against any country that could retaliate threat remains pretty non exsistent
Only biological weapon attack against the USA came from one of your own researchers .Waste of money and lives.

I am pretty sure the thousands of civilians and iranian troops he gassed would hold a different opinion. Or what about the people assasinated by the soviets with ricin? Or the thousands gassed in WWI? But I guess you like the idea of someone with the capability to produce the weapons, and the demonstrated ability to deliver the weapons running around yelling "death to the west."

But dont worry, you are probably safe from the horrible fate that awaits anyone who is exposed to chemical/biological weapons. You also dont have to worry about Saddam giving what weapons he did have to people who would use them on you. People like me took care of that for you.

And I dare you to tell one of the widows, mothers or fathers of one of the dead that their son's/daughter's/Husbands's/Wifes's life was wasted. Yoe get the douchebag of the year award.

-3D

[CAPSmith]

All very well but he had no effective weapons of mass destruction .Even the ones he used in the Iraq/Iran war were pretty rubbish .History of chemical warfare its a bogey man weapon that never acheives half of what it
claims to do .
With the threat of mushroom clouds over baghdad if he did use them against any country that could retaliate threat remains pretty non exsistent
Only biological weapon attack against the USA came from one of your own researchers .Waste of money and lives.

Not really sure that's what the thread was aiming for...

The point is that everyone claims that the war in Iraq is "Bush's War." Democrats try to keep it at an arms length in an effort to appear as though they didn't have anything to do with it. Apparantly, it has fell out of favor to defend our way of life.

As shown above, many of those who are "opposed" to the war were those who, in fact, voted for it. The country can not declare war without the support of Congress. A Congress, which did support the removal of the Sadaam regime.

Leaders of the Democratic Party (Nancy Pilosi, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton) all publicly announced their support of the effort until it became "unpopular."

So the next time someone tells you that this is "Bush's war" remind them that the bi-partisan Congress voted for it.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Now that we're on the subject, can someone tell me what Bush meant when he said this:

To the assembled audience and the world, Mr. Bush said, "Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

"In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment - yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage - your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other - made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.

"Tonight, I have a special word for Secretary Rumsfeld, for General Franks, and for all the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States: America is grateful for a job well done."

It seems to me that he missed the mark here, unless my definition of "major operations in Iraq" is an ignorant one. To me, if we're still there, then it's a major operation. Just a thought...

[Billyd]

It seems to me that he missed the mark here, unless my definition of "major operations in Iraq" is an ignorant one. To me, if we're still there, then it's a major operation. Just a thought...

By that logic, Tim, that would mead that WW II is still being fought as we have troops in Japan and Germany. Just because we are there does not make it a major operation. If you actually do the research and listen to what the MSM will not tell you, more responsibility for the security of Iraq is being turned over to Iraqi forces all the time. We are sliding more and more into support and advisory roles. This does not mean that Americans are not engaged in operations, it just means that the Iraqis are taking a more active role in the planning of operations. They are becoming the lead elements rather than followers.

[SlightlyCatholic]

By that logic, Tim, that would mead that WW II is still being fought as we have troops in Japan and Germany. Just because we are there does not make it a major operation. If you actually do the research and listen to what the MSM will not tell you, more responsibility for the security of Iraq is being turned over to Iraqi forces all the time. We are sliding more and more into support and advisory roles. This does not mean that Americans are not engaged in operations, it just means that the Iraqis are taking a more active role in the planning of operations. They are becoming the lead elements rather than followers.

That's true...thanks for the insight, I didn't think about it that way. So Bush was talking about the initial invasion of Iraq?

By the way, the reason I haven't done much research is because most of the research I try to do is severely polarized. I can't seem to find an objective authority on these types of topics.

[Billyd]

Go to the CENTCOM webpage (www.centcom.mil) and you will find daily updates to what is going on in Iraq and Afgahnistan. Compare that to what you see from the AP, Reuters, UPI and the rest.