Why Obama is scary...

Ok Mr. I have all the right answers and your always wrong.

Please, Why did we attack Iraq, because they were going to nuke us? :roll: I know you have more intelligence than to believe that one. Don’t you?

And the strongest argument for my assertion would be because it’s the simple truth. :wink: But I understand why some like yourself are still in denial. Let it go Michael. :slight_smile:

It must be hard for you to have you fantasy reason debunked:cool:

The possibility of nukes were only one issue.

“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 seing 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 alway 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, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD’S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!

You guys all get on here and bash each other. The truth is that none of us really know what the hell is going on. All I know is that since Obama took office, things are different. Does anyone realize HE FIRED A CEO of a major US corporation!!??? None of you were shocked by that? He wants to be able to decide how much money A CEO or hedge fund manager can earn, how long before he wants to decide how much YOU EARN. That is the definition of the government controlling the private sector. What about him violating the same law he sponsored? Firing an Inspector General, without notice or cause because he was investigating an Obama friend/supporter.

You can fight over who is to blame, left, right, conservatives, dems. But, your wasting your time. They are all to blame. You are to blame, I am to blame, We are to blame. We gave them too much power, we didn’t check them, we allowed the press to fall down on the job. The government does not have any of the answers.

Let me ask you this question. Everyone remember that Nancy Pelosi said the the CIA lied to her about waterboarding. Everyone agree? OK. The congress has decided not to investigate the claim. What? We have either a Representative lying or the CIA lying, both which are major issues. But, they did decide to investigate whether Sammy Sosa lied to congress in 2005 about using steroids!!! WTF, these are the people you want leading this country. Who cares what Sammy Sosa did. I want to know who in my government is lying to me. This is why we are in this state. Most people do not know about this crap. And so goes our government. So keep fighting among yourselves, that way you won’t have to face what is going on.

Some levity in my response, but Michael J, this was a very accurate depiction of the folks in this country who claim to be 'the best informed in the world".

Actually, we are ill-informed, mis-informed, un-informed, and it is purposely done so.

You are RIGHT ON, my man…RIGHT ON!

Nice quotes. Unfortunately the Democrats had absolutely NO backbone at all. They were scared they would look weak and the Right most certainly pushed the issue. They were afraid to stand up to the Bush Administration. They gave Bush and his Crony War Mongers every Fn thing they asked for. IMO the Dems are a bunch of Fn pushovers who, like all Politicians are more worried about how they are perceived than doing what’s right for our Country.

But today after the fact many on the left & right finally admitted it was a mistake. But there are still those who can’t or won’t admit their mistakes. Many are in STILL in denial, The Likes of Bush, Cheney & Rummy to name just a few.

The Iraqi war was not only a mistake. It was a catastrophic huge mistake that cost us dearly. And I blame the Dems for not stopping it as much as I blame the Bush Administration for starting it.

And I’m sure you do remember Cheney’s old Company Halliburton getting no bid - Billion dollar contracts. Ahh,Democracy at it’s finest.

Glad you like them, now please own them.

:roll::roll:As far as no bid contracts, Clinton also let no bid contracts to Halliburton.

The Facts on Halliburton

**It is certainly true that during a two year period Halliburton’s revenue from Defense Department contracts doubled. However, that increase in revenue occurred from
1998 to 2000 - during the Clinton administration. **

Read the whole thing and maybe you will realize that this Haliburton “club” is a Democrat invention and little more.

In the hindsight of 20/20, most of can say we wish Iraq had been handled differently but we can’t put the mess back in it’s can.

That artlicle is pure bunk & you know it Michael. :smiley:

FBI Investigates Halliburton’s No-Bid Contracts

FBI widens investigation of Halliburton’s no-bid $7 billion contract in Iraq.

Halliburton defrauding the government of Billions of taxpayers dollars](Halliburton defrauding the government of Billions of taxpayers dollars – ** Fuel Efficient Vehicles **)

Your getting there. :wink:

Talk about someone who will not admit the truth! The Dems were not afraid of Bush, they were telling the truth then, as long as they could ride on it’s back to stay in power, they changed their strategy to discredit Bush so they could regain total power. They speak to people like you who are gullible and will believe anything that goes along with what they** want to** believe.Wake up Kevin :roll:

I understand your frustration Ken. Your guy lost. Let it go. :wink:

And you really think you **won **with your guy?

No, I didn’t win. I wasn’t running. Obama won because the majority of Americans voted for him. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/ :smiley:

You are right, you didn’t win, neither did the rest of us, including those that voted for Obama, But they will figure it out soon enough.

You call the story I posted bunk. Prove it.

OOO, the FBI. Were there indictments?

Put down the Kool-Aide Kevin. You’re overdosed.

A Fathers Day Tribute

Daddy Why Did We Attack Iraq?

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That’s because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that’s why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That’s because the weapons are so well hidden. Don’t worry, we’ll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I’m confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn’t they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn’t want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn’t make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It’s a different culture. It’s not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don’t know about you, but I don’t think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn’t matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don’t go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it’s a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn’t that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What’s the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba’ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn’t you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China’s a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn’t a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn’t that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don’t be a smart-***.
Q: I didn’t think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don’t have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he’s not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What’s a military coup?
A: That’s when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn’t the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn’t you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men – fifteen of them Saudi Arabians – hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren’t the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people’s heads and hands?
A: Yes, that’s exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people’s heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn’t the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people’s heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people’s heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It’s OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people’s hands for growing flowers, but it’s cruel if they cut off people’s hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don’t they also cut off people’s hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That’s different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don’t Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What’s the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman’s body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman’s body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don’t go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets – I mean, the Russians – are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we’re mad at them now. We’re also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn’t help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn’t do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn’t Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn’t that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that’s true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America’s side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you’re saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q: Good night, Daddy.

Michael, If you beleive this statement/Bunk from the article you linked to -

The ‘no-bid contract’ in question is actually an extension of an earlier contract to support U.S. troops overseas that Halliburton won under open bidding.

Then I have some Kool-Aide I would like to sell you. It comes with an island in the Bahamas.

In December 2001, Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, secured a 10-year deal known as the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP), from the Pentagon. The contract is a “cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity service” which basically means that the federal government has an open-ended mandate and budget to send Brown and Root anywhere in the world to run military operations for a profit. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6008

Truth Leaks Out in Iraq War-Related Contract Abuse Case

White House Officials and Cheney Aide Approved Halliburton Contract in Iraq, Pentagon Says


And theres plenty more.

[quote=“jburkeson1, post:37, topic:39680”]

A Fathers Day Tribute

Daddy Why Did We Attack Iraq?

Q: Didn’t the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
quote]

I had never heard this. It just keeps getting better & better all the time.

What great leaders they were. :shock:

Joe that was the coolest thing I read all day. Yup it’s being forwarded as we speak. Thanks!
G