Is this real? Dems support taking action agains Iraq

[imfreaky]

I'm no die hard liberal OK. But I am a dem. I've been accused of being a freeper too. I am not. I am just into checking both sides out. That being said, a friend sent this link to me. I'd like to see if others can show me if this is fake or not. This looks pretty authentic. But desperate people do desperate things. Before clicking just know that you are going to "supposedly" see some our current and former democratic leaders espousing that Iraq should be dealt with and that they did have WMD.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=df6_1172732739

[sabra]

1. "Iraq should be dealt with"

PNAC put alot of pressure on Clinton... but he never attacked

[Beetwasher]

2. They WERE Being Dealt With

Via weapons inspectors. "Dealt with" only means invading w/ no cause, no evidence and for no reason to Republicans and idiots. For reasonable, rational, intelligent people, "dealt with" can mean many other things. The inspectors WERE dealing w/ Iraq. Iraq WAS contained and controlled.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[emulatorloo]

3. So? Bush is the one who invaded with NO PLAN. Bush's people misplaced BILLIONS of Dollars.

Bush LIED in the State of the Union Address. Bush alienated all of our allies.

Not Madeline Albright et al.

More Desperate GOP video --- Blame the dems for BUSH'S DISATER

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

4. "Dealt with" is not synonymous with "Invaded".

So yeah, they supported taking 'actions', but not illegally invading.

I doubt they would have set up their own cherrypicking-office in the Pentagon. That took neo-cons. No neo-cons in this party. (yet)

That clear it up for ya?

[flamin lib]

5. The issue isn't that Saddam wasn't a bad guy it was how to deal

with him. I personally believed that he had Chem weapons but he had no delivery system. Never thought he had Nukes or was even close to getting them. He didn't have bio 'cause containing them is too difficult and they're a lot more delicate than most people think.

The question is how to deal with the threat. Clinton and Bush the First contained him, kept him pinned down so he couldn't increase his capacity or make delivery. His fleet of MIG fighters was buried in the desert so US overflights couldn't find 'em.

That's a bit different from invasion and occupation.

[Deep13]

6. Two points about Congressional Ds ante bellum.

1. They should not have just taken W. on his word. He had a track record of deception even then.

2. Having said that, the information given to them by Bush was not the real intelligence Bush had, but the "crap souffle" of distortions, lies and hand-picked tid-bits taken out of context. If the Congressional Ds thought that Iraq was building nuclear weapons (and this is what it was really about) they could be excused for thinking so based on Bush's lies to them. Further, Bush promised to use the authorization as a stick to get Saddam to comply with the inspectors and only to use military action as a last resort.

[Buzz Clik]

7. Oh, crap. Not this shit again.

The Democratic "hypocrisy": When Saddam tossed out the UN inspectors and was making all kinds of threats, the Democrats said he needed to be reined in. That was nearly ten years ago. He was nailed with a few cruise missiles and, not unlike Khadaffi, settled down a bit.

The Republicans, as you may recall, were heavily opposed to these actions against Saddam.

My how things change when the leadership in the WH rotates.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[subterranean]

18. Minor correction: Saddam never tossed the UN inspectors out.

The UN pulled its inspectors out voluntarily after being informed of the plans to bomb Iraq. The myth that "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" has been perpetuated by the Washington Post and other media. It's a perfect demonstration that if a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes accepted as truth.

[Buzz Clik]

19. You need to back it up a few years.

On October 31, 1998, Saddam did, indeed, toss out all UNSCOM inspectors. He let them back in on November 14, but refused to give them access to sites. The inspectors were withdrawn and Saddam to never allow them back.

On September 17, 2002, Iraq allowed the inspectors back for the first time in nearly 4 years. They were withdrawn shortly after to avoid the impending bombing.

[subterranean]

20. What is your source?

While it is true that Saddam obstructed their work, it is inaccurate to say that he kicked the inspectors out.

According to this timeline on the BBC site, Saddam ceased all cooperation with the inspectors on October 31, 1998. The UN then withdrew them on November 11, but then Saddam offered to let them return, which they did on November 17. On December 16, after chief inspector Richard Butler reported that Iraq was still failing to cooperate, the UN again ordered the inspectors out, and the bombings commenced.

[Buzz Clik]

21. You're referring to Operation Desert Fox

Yeah, we basicly agree. After Desert Fox, the inspectors were gone until just before Bush's Folly.

My source: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline3.htm#1998

[sandnsea]

8. Clinton bombed in Dec 1998

The Republicans called it "wag the dog" at the time. 5 years later, they use the comments made BEFORE the bombing as justification for war. There were no inspectors for all those years, which is why Democrats supported 'dealing with' Iraq, which isn't to say ALL Democrats believed Iraq had WMD. Most believed there was enough concern to move forward, which doesn't mean they supported war, not even most of the ones who voted for the IWR. They voted for a process to make sure Saddam was disarmed, Bush chose to go to war regardless of the process results.

Unfortunately, those in the Clinton Administration were not vocal enough in explaining the difference between 1998 and 2002, because Hillary didn't want to look weak on defense.

[Deep13]

9. "I've been accused of being a freeper too."

Just out of curiosity, with under 100 posts, when did you have a chance to be accused of being a Freeper?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deep13]

16. I know what you mean.

I don't always agree either.

[jobycom]

10. Action in the form of bombing key military targets, not civilian populations.

Clinton put a lot of pressure on Hussein to comply with past treaties and resolutions, including allowing inspections. Hussein tested his chains constantly, especially when the Republicans were trying impeach Clinton and Hussein thought he might be distracted. Clinton stood up to him by bombing military installations, with little, usually no, loss of life, but high monetary cost to Hussein. We know the result. Hussein was in compliance with all treaties and resolutions when Bush invaded.

Bush invaded on made-up evidence. He knowingly lied in the SOTU address when he repeated the story about Niger even though he had been told it was false. He had Powell lie to the UN in a speech that was widely debunked even before the invasion. He invaded Iraq, dropped bombs on civilian targets, and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. And he still has no plan to fix the country, and no way to get us out.

There's no comparison. Even if Clinton and the Dems were wrong in believing Hussein had weapons programs--and actually it looks like there was a lot of truth to what he said, because BushCo did find evidence of programs that had been halted or destroyed in the 90s--his response was more reasonable, more focused, more productive, and resulted in a handful of deaths, at most. Bush slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. It's like scattering a schoolyard with an automatic weapon trying to kill a rabid coyote. Even if you hit the coyote, you've killed more kids than the coyote ever would have.

[imfreaky]

17. I like your quote/signature thing. Build up your candidate etc.

[dkofos]

11. If you want to believe the PNAC Neocon lies that is up to you

Talking about dealing with Iraq, and actually starting a war are worlds apart.

The Clinton administration won't be tried for war crimes.

We don't know about the present misadministration.