• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

There's a big difference, though.

Whatever Clinton said or did did not cost 4,400 American lives and a trillion dollars.

Or...
Yes...but there is a big difference. Clintons (and the IN's refusal to act for 10 years and instead insistence on passing 17 impotent and unenforced UN resolutions) left the problem for someone else to deal with...

Either EVERY elected democrat and world intel agency lied, or they didnt.

And then of course we have several attacks by Clinton on a sovereign nation based on lies...right?

And the justification for a declared war against Serbia was...what again?
 
Or...
Yes...but there is a big difference. Clintons (and the IN's refusal to act for 10 years and instead insistence on passing 17 impotent and unenforced UN resolutions) left the problem for someone else to deal with...

Either EVERY elected democrat and world intel agency lied, or they didnt.

And then of course we have several attacks by Clinton on a sovereign nation based on lies...right?

And the justification for a declared war against Serbia was...what again?

There was nothing that required we clean up Iraq. That's the flaw in your argument here.
 
And thus, any thought that he lied about the WMDs is lost.

He went in with the hope of finding WMDs. He cherry picked all the intel and ignored any that contradicted his theory that Saddam still had WMDs. Yeah he was lying.
 
He went in with the hope of finding WMDs. He cherry picked all the intel and ignored any that contradicted his theory that Saddam still had WMDs. Yeah he was lying.
You cannot in any way prove that he did not believe what he was saying was true, or that he knew that he was saying was false.
Thus, you cannot show hat he lied.
:shrug:
 
There was nothing that required we clean up Iraq. That's the flaw in your argument here.

Years of de-stabilization policy had lead to a situation so unstable that genocide had occured by the dictator against his own people (twice if you count the Marsh Arabs) and mass starvation was occuring due to the sale of oil-for-food trade. The situation was totally screwed up, out of control and well... enough was enough. We had to go clean it up.

Fortunately, our policy there is now stabilization and Iraq has made huge strides towards a modern government in very few years. I only hope that Iraq will continue to improve and someday soon realize its great potential. What was once a genocidal dictatorship might become a beacon in a dark part of the world. Long live Iraqi democracy.
 
Last edited:
You cannot in any way prove that he did not believe what he was saying was true, or that he knew that he was saying was false.
Thus, you cannot show hat he lied.
:shrug:

And you can not show that he didn't. Either he lied, which I believe he did, or he was a fool. A fool that cost US taxpayers a trillion dollars and tens of thousands of lives. God will judge him.
 
Fortunately, our policy there is now stabilization and Iraq has made huge strides towards a modern government in very few years. I only hope that Iraq will continue to improve and someday soon realize its great potential. What was once a genocidal dictatorship might become a beacon of light in a dark part of the world. Long live Iraqi democracy.

Iraq is a powder keg. The bad guys are still there, the new regime is just as corrupt as Saddam's and as soon as US troops leave there will be another regime change. Iraqi democracy is a joke.
 
the new regime is just as corrupt as Saddam's

Oh please.

How can anyone take that (or anything nearby) seriously?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
There was nothing that required we clean up Iraq. That's the flaw in your argument here.

Right...because the UN could always just pass another 12 or 13 resolutions. I guess that Clintons attacks in Iraq...they did the trick...of course...he didnt think so...and neither did any of the other elected democrat officials...since they ALL stated Iraq still presented a real threat. But by damn we have some real good armchair Monday morning quarterbacks operating on the 'real' knowledge we NOW have...dont we.
 
Oh please.

How can anyone take that (or anything nearby) seriously?

It's the truth. Some people can't handle the truth.

BERLIN – An international watchdog group says Afghanistan remains the world's second most corrupt country, and Iraq is not far behind.

The annual report of Transparency International found Somalia to be most corrupt country, followed by Afghanistan tied with Myanmar, and then Iraq.

Denmark, New Zealand and Singapore tied for first place as the most principled nations.

Of the 178 countries surveyed about public sector corruption, nearly three quarters fell below an index score of five on a scale where zero is the most corrupt and 10 is the least.

The group said Tuesday the overall results show that greater efforts must go into strengthening governance across the globe.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3447.shtml

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60917C20100110

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20834
 
Last edited:
Or...
Yes...but there is a big difference. Clintons (and the IN's refusal to act for 10 years and instead insistence on passing 17 impotent and unenforced UN resolutions) left the problem for someone else to deal with...

Either EVERY elected democrat and world intel agency lied, or they didnt.

And then of course we have several attacks by Clinton on a sovereign nation based on lies...right?

And the justification for a declared war against Serbia was...what again?

You guys keep bringing up Clinton for diversion.

I don't care about Serbia. Not the issue here.


You think it was a good idea to go to war with Iraq and justify it with Saddam's attitude toward the UN? Screw the UN. Whose people are dying? Who is paying the bill?

If UN resolutions are good enough for you to invade a country (on an optional basis) that we essentially already controlled militarily, then you are easily satisfied. What other pissant countries would you like to attack on behalf of the UN?
 
Not all Democrats (or Republicans) voted for the war. There are a couple of people here who seem to be implying that all Democrats were for the war.


House members voting against Iraq war:

Abercrombie
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wu

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml


Senators who voted against Iraq war:

NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
 
Last edited:
That's supposed to make sense?
It does if you understand that history started before Jan 2001.

Clinton went to war in Iraq over what must have been lies about WMDs.
Apparently that's OK becaue that war didn't cost 'too much'.
So, really, the issue isn't lying about going to war, it's either the cost of the war or, more probably, who did the lying.
 
Burden of proof is on those that make the claim.
That's you, BTW.
Nothing can be proven to be fact. I claim he lied. You claim he didn't. Right? Logic shows he did.
 
You guys keep bringing up Clinton for diversion.

I don't care about Serbia. Not the issue here.


You think it was a good idea to go to war with Iraq and justify it with Saddam's attitude toward the UN? Screw the UN. Whose people are dying? Who is paying the bill?

If UN resolutions are good enough for you to invade a country (on an optional basis) that we essentially already controlled militarily, then you are easily satisfied. What other pissant countries would you like to attack on behalf of the UN?

I keep brining up Clinton to point out the hypocrisy of mindless myopic ideologues. And it works quite well.
 
It does if you understand that history started before Jan 2001.

Clinton went to war in Iraq over what must have been lies about WMDs.
Apparently that's OK becaue that war didn't cost 'too much'.
So, really, the issue isn't lying about going to war, it's either the cost of the war or, more probably, who did the lying.

Clinton went to war in Iraq? What's your definition of "war"?
 
Nothing can be proven to be fact. I claim he lied. You claim he didn't. Right? Logic shows he did.
If this were true. then you could prove your claim.
 
If this were true. then you could prove your claim.

Bush told us that Saddam absolutely had stockpiles of WMDs. Saddam didn't. Therefore Bush was wrong. What he told us was not true. Correct? He told us a lie.
 
Not all Democrats (or Republicans) voted for the war. There are a couple of people here who seem to be implying that all Democrats were for the war.

Actually the vote was not for war, but a vote to shirk their responsibility and allow the president to decide. Just saying . . . . :coffeepap
 
Years of de-stabilization policy had lead to a situation so unstable that genocide had occured by the dictator against his own people (twice if you count the Marsh Arabs) and mass starvation was occuring due to the sale of oil-for-food trade. The situation was totally screwed up, out of control and well... enough was enough. We had to go clean it up.

Fortunately, our policy there is now stabilization and Iraq has made huge strides towards a modern government in very few years. I only hope that Iraq will continue to improve and someday soon realize its great potential. What was once a genocidal dictatorship might become a beacon in a dark part of the world. Long live Iraqi democracy.

genocide had not accured for some years. If we ahd intervened when that was going on, that might have been reason, a just reason to invade. As it was not going on, and had not been going on for years, that arguement doesn't really hold up. Instead, as I have said, we added injury to injury.

And while I agree sanctions were hurting the Iraqi people, those could have been adjusted without oil for food or invasion. Problems can be spotted and adjusted for. Saddam was very isolated and not likely to pose much threat no what we did.

Also, people in NK are suffering now. Should we invade?
 
Oh please.

How can anyone take that (or anything nearby) seriously?

It is corrupt and last I heard, they are still torturing their own people. Not to mention there is a lot of infighting and violence today. Iraq may one day be a better place. But it may have become better over time without the cost and in a less deadly manner had their future really been what we were concerned with.
 
Back
Top Bottom