Syria 'welcomes' proposal to hand over control of chemical weapons [W:122]

Ockham · Sep 10, 2013

greengirl77 said:
So the righties are gonna try to rewrite history again! Well color me surprised at this load of BS!

Education and academia is run by and large by he more politically liberal leaning.

Iraq Liberation Act... Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

:roll:

greengirl77 · Sep 10, 2013

So now the right is blaming Clinton for Iraq?? Hold on do I smell a bunch of hypocrits as so Dems cant blame Bush, but Bush started a war in Iraq that added a trillion to the debt and you people blame Clinton. LMFAO!!!

Gladiator · Sep 10, 2013

MaggieD said:
If this happens? If Syria acquiesces? To think that The White House can't spin this into victory is naive.

Maybe the conversation between Assad and his managers of chemical weapons went like this:

Military: Hey Mr. Assad, how about you let us use chemical weapons against the Terrorists?

Assad: Hey, fine by me, but just don't get caught.

Military: We'll plant some Poison Gas on the Terrorists, so they will get caught, and we can blame all the gas attacks on the Terrorists.

Assad: Great Idea, I'll just blame the Terrorists, if the West comes up with accusations.

Military: Just don't go around admitting that you knew we were using chemical weapons. Make the West prove it was us, and not the Terrorists.

Assad: I'll never admit I knew we were using the chemical weapons.

Actually, Assad probably has little control over the military. The only way Assad can stop the military from using chemical weapons, is to destroy the chemical weapons.

Some people say that the orders for gassing had to come from the top. I suspect that military commanders have a lot of discretion, under Assad. Assad is in no position to tell the military commanders what they cannot do, with what weapons.

//

CRUE CAB · Sep 10, 2013

notquiteright said:
LMAO, Putin cut and ran when he saw a chance... if the Cons weren't so partisan they would call it what it is... a run away. Obama is dealing with the situation without invading. I realize many cons want this to be 'as bad' as Iraq, but that ain't happening... :2wave:

Where is Putin running to? He is still engaged, he is still making suggestions and still covering for his ally Assad.

Fenton · Sep 10, 2013

greengirl77 said:
Check me if I am wrong but wasnt it Rumsfield who actually said we know right where they are?? Yellow cake ring a bell. Maybe Clinton did not attack because the information wasnt true. Bush 2 could not wait to get us over there at the cost of 1 trillion dollars and a bunch of body bags. Do not try to pin that on Clinton it was Bushes decision to lie and to put our troops in harms way!!

Oh please, Clinton attacked Kosovo over much less, AND he gave Halliburton their first "no bid" contract.

Here's some more Democrats quotes on the Iraq situation...

"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators 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 th! e 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 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

What was the final vote on the Iraq Resolution ?

Face it, you bought into a Bull Sh** false narrative and it's really old hat to keep bringing it up.

j-mac · Sep 11, 2013

notquiteright said:
No what 'neutered' the UsofA is the same thing that neutered us after the fall of Saigon. We Americans can't stand a long bloody frustrating war with no clear national security issue with a constant flow of coffins from a land most Americans could givahoot about. A constant false hope of victory just around the corner. Light at the end of the tunnel and all that crap.

We have entered a new 'Vietnam Syndrome' period thanks to the ill conceived neo-con debacle in Iraq. Thanks to BushII we are going to have a period, for good or ill we shall see, where we refuse to lift a finger to help people struggling to be free...

I guess we will have to disagree on what poorly handled means- even with an uncooperative Congress President Obama got Russia to quit 'defending' Syria avoiding what many partisan pundits just KNEW was the start of WWIII, got Assad to agree to being rummaged through to remove a potent weapon from his arsenal- and we ALL know how much dictators fighting for survival love being rummaged and stripped of a weapon. :roll:

And he got this done without thousands of dead Americans or a regional war.

What the world knows is unlike the strutting and snickering wannabee cowboy of the past Con administration, President Obama was willing to work the diplomatic side of our power to effect change. He didn't throw down 'with us or against us' crap assed speeches that included a long hard stare at Europe after rebuffing them in Afghanistan.

So your wuss whine looks a lot like a pile of grapes that never sweetened up... eace

:lamo That's truly funny....Listen, your boy got himself into a mess, and made a lot of noise about taking unilateral action, even ordered those big nasty war ships into the region. He thought he had friends standing with him until he looked around, and no one was behind him, not even our staunchest ally for over a hundred years, Britain was standing with him. As if that isn't weak enough, he then decides that he should go to congress for political cover, and has NO chance of getting what he wants, even demo's are against him. Then he goes to Russia for the G20 and all of the sudden Putin is willing to bail his sorry ass out of the jam he has put himself in? And you buy it hook, line, and sinker? :lamo

Obama is a laughing stock, paralyzed by inept, incompetent inaction, and you see nothing but a success. Well, the rest of the world sees a non leader, not willing to take the lead in anything, unless it is moving to the first tee. What a joke.

Ockham · Sep 11, 2013

greengirl77 said:
So now the right is blaming Clinton for Iraq??

Just pointing out your accusation of "Cons rewriting history" blather was ignorant on your part. Make accusations but at least be informed about it.

greengirl77 said:
Hold on do I smell a bunch of hypocrits...

If you do, it's the Democrats banging that war drum.

notquiteright · Sep 11, 2013

ItAin'tFree said:
Easy to see you will never make a living writing accurate history books.

Well accuracy is in the eye of the Beholder... Some Cons are still trying to fight the Vietnam war so I can see how many radical right folks don't like the idea we have a new 'Vietnam Syndrome' thanks to the Cons who thought they could do anything they wanted because 'they' had won the cold war and GAWD was on their side.

Grant · Sep 11, 2013

notquiteright said:
No what 'neutered' the UsofA is the same thing that neutered us after the fall of Saigon. We Americans can't stand a long bloody frustrating war with no clear national security issue with a constant flow of coffins from a land most Americans could givahoot about. A constant false hope of victory just around the corner. Light at the end of the tunnel and all that crap.

We have entered a new 'Vietnam Syndrome' period thanks to the ill conceived neo-con debacle in Iraq. Thanks to BushII we are going to have a period, for good or ill we shall see, where we refuse to lift a finger to help people struggling to be free...

I guess we will have to disagree on what poorly handled means- even with an uncooperative Congress President Obama got Russia to quit 'defending' Syria avoiding what many partisan pundits just KNEW was the start of WWIII, got Assad to agree to being rummaged through to remove a potent weapon from his arsenal- and we ALL know how much dictators fighting for survival love being rummaged and stripped of a weapon. :roll:

And he got this done without thousands of dead Americans or a regional war.

What the world knows is unlike the strutting and snickering wannabee cowboy of the past Con administration, President Obama was willing to work the diplomatic side of our power to effect change. He didn't throw down 'with us or against us' crap assed speeches that included a long hard stare at Europe after rebuffing them in Afghanistan.

So your wuss whine looks a lot like a pile of grapes that never sweetened up... eace

You were on the right path with your "Vietnam Syndrome" analysis but then drifted off into the usual leftist confusion.

The "Vietnam Syndrome" begin under Democrat Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and the leftists, particularly under Johnson, turned on their own country, leadership, and military. That continues to this day.

notquiteright · Sep 11, 2013

j-mac said:
:lamo That's truly funny....Listen, your boy got himself into a mess, and made a lot of noise about taking unilateral action, even ordered those big nasty war ships into the region. He thought he had friends standing with him until he looked around, and no one was behind him, not even our staunchest ally for over a hundred years, Britain was standing with him. As if that isn't weak enough, he then decides that he should go to congress for political cover, and has NO chance of getting what he wants, even demo's are against him. Then he goes to Russia for the G20 and all of the sudden Putin is willing to bail his sorry ass out of the jam he has put himself in? And you buy it hook, line, and sinker? :lamo

Obama is a laughing stock, paralyzed by inept, incompetent inaction, and you see nothing but a success. Well, the rest of the world sees a non leader, not willing to take the lead in anything, unless it is moving to the first tee. What a joke.

Cons can keep repeating that until the cows come home but it ain't flying. Unlike BushII in Iraq, Obama listens to the other nations and folks at home.

But lets review. Russia blinked, Assad grasped, Obama is getting work done without sending thousands of Americans to their deaths.

I understand Cons are loath to see this anyway but the way they want to spin it. but the bottom line is even with no help from congress or Europe Obama is removing chemical weapons from the civil war.

Cons were so sure this was the start of WWIII

Cons were so sure this would help Sunni terrorists they refuse to see the Shiite terrorists on Assad's side.

Cons were calling planned limited missile strikes either 'war mongering' OR wussy 'face saving'

Cons want to say Obama wants a war to boost his poll numbers when he can't run again.

So it seems to me the Con POV has been so wrong, so long it is a wonder some continue to beat this horse.

What legacy the Cons have left this country is a deep fear of any military action in the world. We want fast clean wars. We got a hot mess with thousands of dead Americans a huge drain on our finances that gained us nothing and an Administration so focused on Iraq they refused to see the economy starting to collapse. Iraq exposed us as having a huge military that was so top heavy it couldn't sustain an operation that lasts longer than a woman's hair style.

A President well on his way to forcing a dictator to abandon a chemical weapon while fighting for his life WITHOUT killing thousands of American Soldiers...

That is a WIN

But do keep trying to force everything into the 'it's just like' mold. :roll:

ItAin'tFree · Sep 11, 2013

greengirl77 said:
So the righties are gonna try to rewrite history again! Well color me surprised at this load of BS!

LOL.

Sometimes laughter is the best medicine. And in this case I will not laugh at you. I will laugh with you.

Anything else would be cruel.

Grant · Sep 11, 2013

notquiteright said:
Cons can keep repeating that until the cows come home but it ain't flying. Unlike BushII in Iraq, Obama listens to the other nations and folks at home.

But lets review. Russia blinked, Assad grasped, Obama is getting work done without sending thousands of Americans to their deaths.

I understand Cons are loath to see this anyway but the way they want to spin it. but the bottom line is even with no help from congress or Europe Obama is removing chemical weapons from the civil war.

Cons were so sure this was the start of WWIII

Cons were so sure this would help Sunni terrorists they refuse to see the Shiite terrorists on Assad's side.

Cons were calling planned limited missile strikes either 'war mongering' OR wussy 'face saving'

Cons want to say Obama wants a war to boost his poll numbers when he can't run again.

So it seems to me the Con POV has been so wrong, so long it is a wonder some continue to beat this horse.

What legacy the Cons have left this country is a deep fear of any military action in the world. We want fast clean wars. We got a hot mess with thousands of dead Americans a huge drain on our finances that gained us nothing and an Administration so focused on Iraq they refused to see the economy starting to collapse. Iraq exposed us as having a huge military that was so top heavy it couldn't sustain an operation that lasts longer than a woman's hair style.

A President well on his way to forcing a dictator to abandon a chemical weapon while fighting for his life WITHOUT killing thousands of American Soldiers...

That is a WIN

But do keep trying to force everything into the 'it's just like' mold. :roll:

Putin blinked!!!

Not only was there no reason for Putin to blink it was Obama who was scrambling in circles looking for a way out. Putin is now the hero in the Middle East, and elsewhere, for saving lives and we know that these chemical weapons, which were apparently supplied by Russia, will now never be found.

But you did give me my first laugh of the day so that's appreciated.

Samhain · Sep 11, 2013

Grant said:
Putin blinked!!!

Not only was there no reason for Putin to blink it was Obama who was scrambling in circles looking for a way out. Putin is now the hero in the Middle East, and elsewhere, for saving lives and we know that these chemical weapons, which were apparently supplied by Russia, will now never be found.

But you did give me my first laugh of the day so that's appreciated.

Russia has now stated that they will only back their proposed diplomatic solution if the US agrees to never to attack Syria.

Of course, attempting to spin that a diplomatic solution was the hope all along, someone better tell Obama, Rice, Powers, and Kerry, who as late as this past Sunday, all stated that there will be no diplomatic solution because Assad cannot be trusted.

notquiteright · Sep 11, 2013

Grant said:
You were on the right path with your "Vietnam Syndrome" analysis but then drifted off into the usual leftist confusion. The "Vietnam Syndrome" begin under Democrat Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and the leftists, particularly under Johnson, turned on their own country, leadership, and military. That continues to this day.

And your right wing partisanship keeps you from seeing it was the AMERICAN CITIZEN who refused to back ANY military actions for decades. Didn't matter the political lean... Vietnam spoiled the American Invincibility myth. I seem to recall the Cons being against Bosnia and missile strikes during the Clinton years.

I would point out the 'they hate America' crap is worn out. The feeling toward the military isn't hate, just confusion on why we have a military larger than the next 14 nations COMBINED, most an ally, but couldn't keep up the operational tempo of in a rather weak nation like Iraq for the TRILLION or so dollars spent each year.

Any thought of scrutinizing the DOD spending practices gets called 'hating the military' :roll:

notquiteright · Sep 11, 2013

Grant said:
Putin blinked!!! Not only was there no reason for Putin to blink it was Obama who was scrambling in circles looking for a way out. Putin is now the hero in the Middle East, and elsewhere, for saving lives and we know that these chemical weapons, which were apparently supplied by Russia, will now never be found. But you did give me my first laugh of the day so that's appreciated.

Yes he did, blinked and silenced his attack lap dogs. Russia isn't saving lives, the slaughter continues. I'd say it isn't a matter of 'finding' them as much as they are spirited out of Syria so they can't be used again. Chemical weapons are not as hard to make as a thermonuclear device, ANY nation can manufacture the chem weapons. It would be foolish to think a artillery shell/ aircraft ordinance will have "made by the happy workers of Novorisk Factory #7" on them...

Grant · Sep 11, 2013

notquiteright said:
And your right wing partisanship keeps you from seeing it was the AMERICAN CITIZEN who refused to back ANY military actions for decades. Didn't matter the political lean... Vietnam spoiled the American Invincibility myth. I seem to recall the Cons being against Bosnia and missile strikes during the Clinton years.

That is clearly false.

I would point out the 'they hate America' crap is worn out. The feeling toward the military isn't hate, just confusion on why we have a military larger than the next 14 nations COMBINED, most an ally, but couldn't keep up the operational tempo of in a rather weak nation like Iraq for the TRILLION or so dollars spent each year.

Yes, i pointed to that confusion in your previous post.

Any thought of scrutinizing the DOD spending practices gets called 'hating the military' :roll:

DOD spending practices were not being discussed.

However here's just a couple of quotes from a celebrated American leftist.

American soldiers [are] going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the historical customs, religious customs." --John Kerry in 2005

"[American troops in Vietnam] personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, [blew] up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to...the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. ... There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed...." --John Kerry in his 1971 testimony before Congress

Grant · Sep 11, 2013

Samhain said:
Russia has now stated that they will only back their proposed diplomatic solution if the US agrees to never to attack Syria.

Of course, attempting to spin that a diplomatic solution was the hope all along, someone better tell Obama, Rice, Powers, and Kerry, who as late as this past Sunday, all stated that there will be no diplomatic solution because Assad cannot be trusted.

Did Kerry explain that all he wanted "an unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.” Who could possibly object to that?

It is definitely a new strategy, and one that has historically never been uttered before in any pre-war debate.

Grant · Sep 11, 2013

notquiteright said:
Yes he did, blinked and silenced his attack lap dogs.

What 'lap dogs' are you referring to?

Russia isn't saving lives, the slaughter continues.

Of course. But now Obama has a political out.

It would be foolish to think a artillery shell/ aircraft ordinance will have "made by the happy workers of Novorisk Factory #7" on them...

Then why did you say it?

greengirl77 · Sep 11, 2013

Fenton said:
Oh please, Clinton attacked Kosovo over much less, AND he gave Halliburton their first "no bid" contract.

Here's some more Democrats quotes on the Iraq situation...

"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators 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 th! e 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 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

What was the final vote on the Iraq Resolution ?

Face it, you bought into a Bull Sh** false narrative and it's really old hat to keep bringing it up.

Okay blame Clinton for Kosavo, but the righties blaming Clinton for Iraq is stupid. Kosavo didnt cost a trillion dollars either. I think it would go a really long way if the Cons accepted the fact that Bush/Cheney were some of the worst "leaders" the world has ever seen. However, we all know that will never happen.

MMC · Sep 11, 2013

Samhain said:
Russia has now stated that they will only back their proposed diplomatic solution if the US agrees to never to attack Syria.

Of course, attempting to spin that a diplomatic solution was the hope all along, someone better tell Obama, Rice, Powers, and Kerry, who as late as this past Sunday, all stated that there will be no diplomatic solution because Assad cannot be trusted.

Funny thing.....both Rice and Powers wanted to Strike immediately, so they were siding with McCain and graham from the get go.

notquiteright · Sep 11, 2013

Grant said:
That is clearly false. Yes, i pointed to that confusion in your previous post. DOD spending practices were not being discussed. However here's just a couple of quotes from a celebrated American leftist.

IF it is clearly false do more than just say so... :roll:

No confusion, just not buying the CONtorted view of history a few on the radical right hold.

YOU brought up the 'hate the military' crap... An over weight, over priced, artillery piece gets cancelled and Sen Inhofe wails Obama is gutting the military. :doh

Now you give the perfect example of CONtorted history. Someone points out grunts are not choir boys and don't try and deny grunts collected ears in Vietnam or American soldiers violated the customs of Muslim women in their oh dark 30 door kicking and the rabid right screams you hate the military.

Fact is war is a dirty business and guerrilla war is the rat bastard of dirty.

Grant · Sep 11, 2013

notquiteright said:
IF it is clearly false do more than just say so... :roll:

It was so silly an explanation didn't seem necessary. You said "And your right wing partisanship keeps you from seeing it was the AMERICAN CITIZEN who refused to back ANY military actions for decades. Didn't matter the political lean... Vietnam spoiled the American Invincibility myth. I seem to recall the Cons being against Bosnia and missile strikes during the Clinton years".

It was 'the American citizen' who also supported their country and troops for decades. It was the Leftists who tore down their country's credibility, the military and their leadership. The United States could have easily won in Vietnam but the Leftists, and Leftist propaganda, made that impossible. Thus millions more people in that area had to die.

No confusion, just not buying the CONtorted view of history a few on the radical right hold.

I really don't care what you buy, you obviously have remained uninformed for quite a long while.

YOU brought up the 'hate the military' crap... An over weight, over priced, artillery piece gets cancelled and Sen Inhofe wails Obama is gutting the military. :doh

I never mentioned Sen Inhofe. I quoted John Kerry. Perhaps you can see now how easily confused Leftists really are.

Now you give the perfect example of CONtorted history. Someone points out grunts are not choir boys and don't try and deny grunts collected ears in Vietnam or American soldiers violated the customs of Muslim women in their oh dark 30 door kicking and the rabid right screams you hate the military.

An ambitious John Kerry, sensing a political opportunity, rubbished the US Forces and the goofy leftists bought into it. There was no evidence that anything Kerry said was true, and there never has been. John Kerry is a liar, as well as an incompetent, and can only be supported by those who park their brains outside the polling stations.

Again, no one mentioned "choir boys" either.

Fact is war is a dirty business and guerrilla war is the rat bastard of dirty.

Yes, war is Hell. So I've heard. It must also be Hell fighting for a country where leftists only scream abuse at their leadership while those who would murder Americans largely get a pass.

notquiteright · Sep 11, 2013

Grant said:
It was so silly an explanation didn't seem necessary. You said "And your right wing partisanship keeps you from seeing it was the AMERICAN CITIZEN who refused to back ANY military actions for decades. Didn't matter the political lean... Vietnam spoiled the American Invincibility myth. I seem to recall the Cons being against Bosnia and missile strikes during the Clinton years". It was 'the American citizen' who also supported their country and troops for decades. It was the Leftists who tore down their country's credibility, the military and their leadership. The United States could have easily won in Vietnam but the Leftists, and Leftist propaganda, made that impossible. Thus millions more people in that area had to die.
I really don't care what you buy, you obviously have remained uninformed for quite a long while. I never mentioned Sen Inhofe. I quoted John Kerry. Perhaps you can see now how easily confused Leftists really are. An ambitious John Kerry, sensing a political opportunity, rubbished the US Forces and the goofy leftists bought into it. There was no evidence that anything Kerry said was true, and there never has been. John Kerry is a liar, as well as an incompetent, and can only be supported by those who park their brains outside the polling stations. Again, no one mentioned "choir boys" either. Yes, war is Hell. So I've heard. It must also be Hell fighting for a country where leftists only scream abuse at their leadership while those who would murder Americans largely get a pass.

Supported the troops and country isn't a rightie thing. But the USofA citizen damn sure didn't want anymore endless wars. The American citizen turned away from the myth that we can defeat anyone anywhere at any time. The Cons can keep on believing the Vietnam war could have been won, but the best result was as it always was til we pulled out, the US Grunt controlled the ground he stood on and we could never put enough grunts in to stand on every square foot. Look how many times the British beat Washington, but the rebels just outlasted the Brits and the British people grew tired of the endless war.

More Con quibble- you bring up the lefties hate the military but in fact it is more a case of anyone question an expense the DoD has and they are knee jerk attacked as hating the military. I bring up Sen, Inhofe because he is a classic right wing ranter. The Crusader program was put on hold by Rumsfeld but finally cancelled by the Obama Administration. Inhofe attacked Obama as 'gutting the military' when the 43 ton SP piece was too heavy and not accurate enough.

But of course you don't want to talk about Cons ranting, you want to stay on Kerry who did actually go over. You quibble some more, Kerry didn't lie, Cons just don't like hearing the truth. You use the typical Con dodge- anyone pointing out we have done bad things is said to be 'hating' when it is a very small counterpoint to the HUGE rant fest the right uses. But of course you don't want to see it that way... to you patriotism is unquestioning slurping of the right wing rhetoric machine. :roll:

Face it, Cons are only against military action the Dems propose. I seem to recall the Cons going along with BushI's vague Somalia mission and of course Reagan's folly in Lebanon where 241 Americans died in a suicide bomber attack.

I guess you never served. I did back when ever the average 'silent majority' Citizen saw the war was never going to end, and the reasons for sacrificing so many young men just didn't seem worth it. The BushII neo-cons claimed they found the 'key' to beating Vietnam in Afghanistan but must have misplaced it almost as quickly. Now we will live with the 'Iraqi Syndrome' for awhile.

j-mac · Sep 11, 2013

notquiteright said:
Cons can keep repeating that until the cows come home but it ain't flying. Unlike BushII in Iraq, Obama listens to the other nations and folks at home.

But lets review. Russia blinked, Assad grasped, Obama is getting work done without sending thousands of Americans to their deaths.

I understand Cons are loath to see this anyway but the way they want to spin it. but the bottom line is even with no help from congress or Europe Obama is removing chemical weapons from the civil war.

Cons were so sure this was the start of WWIII

Cons were so sure this would help Sunni terrorists they refuse to see the Shiite terrorists on Assad's side.

Cons were calling planned limited missile strikes either 'war mongering' OR wussy 'face saving'

Cons want to say Obama wants a war to boost his poll numbers when he can't run again.

So it seems to me the Con POV has been so wrong, so long it is a wonder some continue to beat this horse.

What legacy the Cons have left this country is a deep fear of any military action in the world. We want fast clean wars. We got a hot mess with thousands of dead Americans a huge drain on our finances that gained us nothing and an Administration so focused on Iraq they refused to see the economy starting to collapse. Iraq exposed us as having a huge military that was so top heavy it couldn't sustain an operation that lasts longer than a woman's hair style.

A President well on his way to forcing a dictator to abandon a chemical weapon while fighting for his life WITHOUT killing thousands of American Soldiers...

That is a WIN

But do keep trying to force everything into the 'it's just like' mold. :roll:

:lamo keep drinking that kool aid. Obumbler is being played, so are you...

notquiteright · Sep 11, 2013

j-mac said:
:lamo keep drinking that kool aid. Obumbler is being played, so are you...

More Contorted delusions???

Just a few days ago the Cons were making references to WWI and now.
Just a few days ago Cons were saying Putin would fight us.
Just a few days ago Cons claimed Assad would launch a regional war rather than give in.

If I'm drinking kool aid Cons are drinking hard liquor... :lamo

Syria 'welcomes' proposal to hand over control of chemical weapons [W:122]

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

greengirl77

Gladiator

Verifier

CRUE CAB

Fenton

j-mac

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

notquiteright

Grant

notquiteright

ItAin'tFree

Well-known member

Grant

Samhain

notquiteright

notquiteright

Grant

Grant

Grant

greengirl77

MMC

notquiteright

Grant

notquiteright

j-mac

notquiteright