Obama's Abominations 2009-2012

[vman]

To wit, where was this type of 'outrage' when we wrongly invaded a country and killed 25,000 civillians with indiscriminate bombing in Irag in 2003. We were in front of our televisions watching the "shock and awe" because our "Idiocracy-like" society was led to believe that Saddam was such a bad man and that he had WMDs. We were glued to our sets to try and watch as Jr made sure that this bad man was going to pay for having WMDs which he didn't even have. Apparently he was so bad that 100,000 innocent Iraqis people had to die to prove our point. Meanwhile civilians are still dying, but we are too busy to notice because we are taking sides on the arguments about whether or not the SOTU was too superfluous and unobtainable.
..

Democrats Said That Iraq Was A Part Of The War On Terror.

Sen. Levin(D-MI): "The War Against Terrorism Will Not Be Finished As Long As Saddam Is In Power." (CNN's "Late Edition," 12/16/01)

Sen. Levin: "We Begin With The Common Belief That Saddam Hussein Is A Tyrant And A Threat To The Peace And Stability Of The Region." (Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/19/02)


Sen. Kerry (D-MA) Says Saddam Hussein Is Part Of The "Global Menace" Of Terrorism. CNN'S LARRY KING: "What about enhancing this war, Senator Kerry. What are your thoughts on going further than Afghanistan, all terrorist places ..." KERRY: "Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)

SEN. LEVIN: "You know, the administration continues to talk about everybody believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That is true, but that isn't the issue." (CNN's "American Morning," 11/14/05)

Sen. Clinton: "In The Four Years Since The Inspectors, Intelligence Reports Show That Saddam Hussein Has Worked To Rebuild His Chemical And Biological Weapons Stock, His Missile Delivery Capability, And His Nuclear Program. ... It Is Clear, However, That If Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Continue To Increase His Capability To Wage Biological And Chemical Warfare And Will Keep Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)

Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV): "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. And Then Could Have It Earlier If He's Able To Obtain Materials On The Outside Market Which Is Possible. Difficult But Possible." (Sen. John Rockefeller, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, Pg.S10306)

Sen. Kerry: "According To The CIA's Report, All U.S. Intelligence Experts Agree That Iraq Is Seeking Nuclear Weapons. There Is Little Question That Saddam Hussein Wants To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, pp. S10172-10173)

Senator Charles Schumer: When I consider that Hussein could either use or give to terrorists weapons of mass destruction biological, chemical or nuclear and that he might just be mad enough to do it I find, after careful research, the answer to my question: we cannot afford to leave him alone over the next five or even three years. (Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.)

Rep. Pelosi (D-CA): "Saddam Hussein Certainly Has Chemical And Biological Weapons. There's No Question About That." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 11/17/02) .........there's more:

Senator Daschle:

"Iraq's actions pose a serious and continued threat to international peace and security. It is a threat we must address. Saddam is a proven aggressor who has time and again turned his wrath on his neighbors and on his own people. Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people. . . . The United States continues to exhaust all diplomatic efforts to reverse the Iraqi threat. But absent immediate Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, the security threat doesn't simply persist - it worsens. Saddam Hussein must understand that the United States has the resolve to reverse that threat by force, if force is required. And, I must say, it has the will" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Biden:

"An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail. We risk sending a dangerous signal to other would-be proliferators if we do not respond decisively to Iraq's transgressions. Conversely, a firm response would enhance deterrence and go a long way toward protecting our citizens from the pernicious threat of proliferation. . . . Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Lieberman:

"Today, the threat may not be as clear to other nations of the world, but its consequences are even more devastating potentially than the real threat, than the realized pain of the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, because the damage that can be inflicted by Saddam Hussein and Iraq, under his leadership, with weapons of mass destruction is incalculable; it is enormous. . . . Mr. President, if this were a domestic situation, a political situation, and we were talking about criminal law in this country, we have something in our law called 'three strikes and you are out,' three crimes and you get locked up for good because we have given up on you. I think Saddam Hussein has had more than three strikes in the international, diplomatic, strategic and military community. So I have grave doubts that a diplomatic solution is possible here. . . . What I and some of the Members of the Senate hope for is a longer-term policy based on the probability that an acceptable diplomatic solution is not possible, which acknowledges as the central goal the changing of the regime in Iraq to bring to power a regime with which we and the rest of the world can have trustworthy relationships" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Levin:

"Mr. President, this crisis is due entirely to the actions of Saddam Hussein. He alone is responsible. We all wish that diplomacy will cause him to back down but history does not give me cause for optimism that Saddam Hussein will finally get it. . . . Mr. President, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world's energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council. . . . Mr. President, the use of military force is a measure of last resort. The best choice of avoiding it will be if Saddam Hussein understands he has no choice except to open up to UNSCOM inspections and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. The use of military force may not result in that desired result but it will serve to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction and to threaten international peace and security. Although not as useful as inspection and destruction, it is still a worthy goal" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Kerry:

"Mr. President, we have every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein will continue to do everything in his power to further develop weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver those weapons, and that he will use those weapons without concern or pangs of conscience if ever and whenever his own calculations persuade him it is in his interests to do so. . . . I have spoken before this chamber on several occasions to state my belief that the United States must take every feasible step to lead the world to remove this unacceptable threat. He must be deprived of the ability to injure his own citizens without regard to internationally-recognized standards of behavior and law. He must be deprived of his ability to invade neighboring nations. He must be deprived of his ability to visit destruction on other nations in the Middle East region or beyond. If he does not live up fully to the new commitments that U.N. Secretary-General Annan recently obtained in order to end the weapons inspection standoff - and I will say clearly that I cannot conceive that he will not violate those commitments at some point - we must act decisively to end the threats that Saddam Hussein poses." [Congressional Record, 3/13/98.]


Consider the following remarks by a key Democrat: "There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. . .Saddam should never doubt the will of the American people, their legislators, their military, or their commander-in-chief to protect our interests, defend our security, and ensure the well-being of our fellow citizens and that of our friends and allies around the world. He should know that when it comes to protecting our vital national interests, Americans will stand as one. We will speak as one. And whenever, necessary, we will act as one."

Of course, these were the comments of Vice President Al Gore in February 1998, not those of presidential aspirant Al Gore in September 2002. And yet, they claim that Republicans are the ones politicizing the case against Iraq?

Saddam was a mad man but not stupid (anyone who has cable or internet access knew we planned an Iraqi invasion for months...he shipped a lot of $hit to Syria) Bush was blasted over no WMD's but the MSM never covered/followed up on these????:

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 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
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Saddam was a mad man but not stupid (anyone who has cable or internet access knew we planned an Iraqi invasion for months...he shipped a lot of $hit to Syria). Consider:

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says
By IRA STOLL, Staff Reporter of the Sun | January 26, 2006


The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

And this: American officials have also commented on this information. After searching for WMDs in Iraq, U.S. weapons inspector David Kay said, “There is ample evidence of [weapons] movement to Syria before the war – satellite photographs, reports on the ground of a constant stream of trucks, cars, rail traffic across the boarder.” Kay also said the Syrian government was not cooperative “in helping us resolve this issue.” In August, 2004, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice (later Secretary of State) said, “We still don’t have clarity about what role Syria may have played in the movement of weapons one way or another before the war.”

or this:
Report: Three cargo ships suspected of carrying Iraqi WMDs

Story Thu Feb 20, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three giant cargo ships are being tracked by US and British intelligence on suspicion that they might be carrying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Each with a deadweight of 35,000 to 40,000 tonnes, the ships have been sailing around the world's oceans for the past three months while maintaining radio silence in clear violation of international maritime law, say authoritative shipping industry sources.

The vessels left port in late November, just a few days after UN weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix began their search for the alleged Iraqi arsenal on their return to the country.

American and British military forces are believed to be reluctant to stop and search the vessels for fear that any intervention might result in them being scuttled. If they were carrying chemical and biological weapons, or fissile nuclear material, and they were to be sunk at sea, the environmental damage could be catastrophic.

Washington and London might also want to orchestrate any raids so that they can present the ships as "evidence" that President Saddam is engaged in "material breach" of UN resolutions. This could provide the trigger for military strikes. While security sources in London last night were unable to provide information on any surveillance operation, the movement of the three ships is the source of growing concern among maritime and intelligence experts.

A shipping industry source told The Independent: "If Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction, then a very large part of its capability could be afloat on the high seas right now. These ships have maintained radio silence for long periods and, for a considerable time, they have been steaming around in ever-decreasing circles."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And:

July 31, 2008
Iraq WMD shipped to Syria

A former American overseer of Iraqi prisons says several dozen inmates who were members of Saddam Hussein's military and intelligence forces boasted of helping transport weapons of mass destruction to Syria and Lebanon in the three months prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Don Bordenkircher – who served two years as national director of prison and jail operations in Iraq– told WND that about 40 prisoners he spoke with "boasted of being involved in the transport of WMD warheads to Syria.

A smaller number of prisoners, he said, claimed "they knew the locations of the missile hulls buried in Iraq."

Some of the inmates, Bordenkircher said, "wanted to trade their information for a release from prison and were amenable to showing the locations."

The prisoners were members of the Iraqi military or civilians assigned to the Iraqi military, often stationed at munitions facilities, according to Bordenkircher. He said he was told the WMDs were shipped by truck into Syria, and some ended up in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley.

No surprise here really. We had reports and video of trucks moving toward Syria at the time. Saddam knew the US would be looking for these WMD, he wanted to get them to a safe place for two reasons: (1) to embarrass the United States and (2) to make it possible to retrieve the WMD and easily resume his weapons program once the UN gave the all clear pronouncement. According to the report, the shipments "included nitrogen mustard gas warheads for Tariq I and II missiles."

Also confirmed in this report is the presence of, training and safe harbor for, al-Qaeda prior to the war.

Bordenkircher also said prisoners confirmed al-Qaida had a presence in Iraq before Operation Iraqi Freedom began, specifically in Mosul and Kirkuk.

Iraqis under the command of Uday Hussein, one of Saddam Hussein's sons, supported the al-Qaida elements in the country with training and providing safe harbor.

[Crimsoncrush67]

We all know information received by tortured and water boarded inmates has a great deal of validity to it.

Seriously floks, I love how we talk about how the wealth is distributed, when the founders of this country were so extremely well off we forget that the constituion was not written for the common person, you and I.

In other news, violent repression of riots today in Egypt.

[Crimsoncrush67]

Anyone, besides me, and a million intel analysts, find it interesting how quite HAMAS has been during this thing? The rebirth and rise of the Muslim Brotherhood should be sending chills up the spine of every Israeli. Will the US react, and if so what will the reaction be? I think that it would not be the best decision to continue our interference in the Middle East.

[southpaw]

Mubarak abdicates much like the Czar in Russia. Many parallels to the Russion Revoltion and the one in Egypt currently, imo. The muslim brotherhood is anagolous to the bolshivicks and in the political vacuum to follow they could very easily take control the way the Bolshivicks did when they staged a coup and overthrew the Kerensky provisional gov't. We can't let this happen as it would ignite a wave of muslim revolutions just like the communists wave swept through Europe.

[southpaw]

Unfortunately we have another Woodrow Wilson in the White House.

[Crimsoncrush67]

I dunno about the whole Woodrow Wilson thing. If he is allowed to impliment the 14 points and create a functioning League of Nations, his presidency may have been a little better and it is possible that WWII could have been avoided.

I also think that US interfence into this country would be a terrible idea. We are being Vietnamed in Iraq and Afghanistan, added Egypt to that list would be unwise. I truely believe that we need to turn our eyes inward.

[southpaw]

Don't have a problem with a more isolationist or America First change in philosophy. We are not being Veitnamed in the Middle East.

You can trace the roots of our current budget and deficit crisis to the so called "progressive" agenda championed by Woodrow Wilson. Almost 100 years of Wilsonian socialist-entitlement programs have all bankrupted this country not only of money but of a work ethic and have turned most Americans into panderers. The pendulum will swing back the question is when and how hard will it swing.

[Crimsoncrush67]

How can you honestly say that we are not being Veitnamed in the Middle East?

[southpaw]

I say that because Veitnam was strategically non significant to us. The Middle East is. To look at the big picture we have a heavy military presence in both sides of Iran. A potential major flashpoint in the near future. In addition we now have 60,000 plus fully trained spec ops forces twice what we had 10 years ago. The Gov't and military WANT to be in the Middle East the MIC (Military Indust. Complex) also want us there their making a pile of money of these Middle East Conflicts. Plus our armed forces continue to hone their skills for a show down with China which WILL happen in the near future. Not saying its right or I agree with it but it is what it is reality.

[Crimsoncrush67]

At the time, Vietnam was of tremendous geopolitical importance to us. You are right that currently the Middle East is more important due to the fact that what is under the ground over there is the lifeblood of the global economy.

The idea that our spec op troops inflation is a good thing, is a delusion. Spec Ops is not winning the war in the big sand box. If it was, you wouldn't have young men blowing themselves up daily. The problem is that we think we can kill off an idea, which we can't unless we turn all that sand into a big old piece of glass, catch my drift. If it weren't for the fact that there was trillions under all that sand. we wouldn't care. If this exploration of the coast of Brazil pans out we will pull out of there so fast its gonna make heads spin. Sorry Israel.

Then comes the idea about a showdown with China. I think you have been reading too many Clancey books. If we enter into any sort of war aside from an economic one it will be a disaster.