Who would have invaded Iraq in 2003? Hillary did but Trump didn't.

A few things you gloss over.

2. Senator Clinton voted using the same tainted data that every senator who voted yes used. Information provided by the Bush Administration. Fact.
.
Fact. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

True...but there were a whole lot of Senators who did not.



* Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
* Barbara Boxer (D-California)
* Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
* Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
* Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
* Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
* Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
* Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
* Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
* Bob Graham (D-Florida)
* Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
* Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
* Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
* Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
* Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
* Patty Murray (D-Washington)
* Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
* The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
* Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

All of that "special " optical endowment and he still can't see enough of his pecker to help pissing on his hands and boots when he takes a piss ! And he even squats on the toilet to do THAT ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Much less peek into my OMPF!!!!!

2. Senator Clinton voted using the same tainted data that every senator who voted yes used. Information provided by the Bush Administration. Fact. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

You mean like swallowing the VIDEO STORY on Benghazi?

Or was she just listening to Bill again? Who would be advising her in 2017!!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html

"...
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America."

BILL CLINTON 1998

Nothing changed between 1998 and 2003! Nothing!

You mean like swallowing the VIDEO STORY on Benghazi?

Or was she just listening to Bill again? Who would be advising her in 2017!!!!!


Nothing changed between 1998 and 2003! Nothing! Originally Posted by LexusLover

So Bill and Hillary were right about Iraq?

So Bill and Hillary were right about Iraq? Originally Posted by WTF

Still looking 20-20 with your buddy BigTitsIdiot, I see!

I believe the question on the table was "bad information from Bush"!

Don't try one your lame "slight of keyboards" and try to change the subject!

If you want Hillary in 2016 ... then vote for her. Hopefully before you do you will ask yourself:

"How many email accounts can I have on MY IPHONE?"

If your answer is "ONE," then that will explain your vote for her!

You mean like swallowing the VIDEO STORY on Benghazi?

Or was she just listening to Bill again? Who would be advising her in 2017!!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html

"...
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America."

BILL CLINTON 1998

Nothing changed between 1998 and 2003! Nothing! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Actually it was the aftermath. Obama ran when Clinton and Bush recognized that a real effort must be made to change the people lives in Iraq. Obama couldn't get it and Hillary was his evil Minion. Both Hillary and Obama (this will really blow his mind) are responsible for the downfall of Iraq and the rise of ISIS.

Actually it was the aftermath. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Beg to differ. The last WAR the U.S. won was WWII.

Politicians ran the rest of them ....

.... It's difficult to prepare successful meal for fast food mentalities.

There is good reason the former NV military visited Baghdad prior to the invasion!

The invasion in 2003 cost just under 400 U.S. lives. ISIS KNOWS the politicians and voters in this country will not support a sustained incremental conflict so they can defeat the U.S. one pipe bomb and one concert at time!

BTW: That's how "we" won our war of independence! From then Until NOW we have fought our wars overseas.

Bill Clinton had it right! But didn't "pull the trigger"! Obaminable has it WRONG and DOESN'T PULL IT EITHER!

True...but there were a whole lot of Senators who did not.



* Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
* Barbara Boxer (D-California)
* Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
* Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
* Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
* Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
* Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
* Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
* Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
* Bob Graham (D-Florida)
* Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
* Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
* Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
* Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
* Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
* Patty Murray (D-Washington)
* Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
* The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
* Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) Originally Posted by WTF

You are correct. A bunch voted against it. At the time I was kind of on the fence myself. At the time I thought it better to ere on the side of caution. I would have voted for it too. And in retrospect I would have been wrong.
But those aren't the points I was trying to make. My response only dealt with the "charges" leveled and the comparison to trump made by j douche.

Beg to differ. The last WAR the U.S. won was WWII.

Politicians ran the rest of them ....

.... It's difficult to prepare successful meal for fast food mentalities.

There is good reason the former NV military visited Baghdad prior to the invasion!

The invasion in 2003 cost just under 400 U.S. lives. ISIS KNOWS the politicians and voters in this country will not support a sustained incremental conflict so they can defeat the U.S. one pipe bomb and one concert at at time!

BTW: That's how "we" won our war of independence! From then Until NOW we have fought our wars overseas. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Sorry Charlie. In WWII, FDR clearly ran the war. He knew when to listen to the military and when to direct them.

You mean like swallowing the VIDEO STORY on Benghazi?

Or was she just listening to Bill again? Who would be advising her in 2017!!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html

"...
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America."

BILL CLINTON 1998

Nothing changed between 1998 and 2003! Nothing! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Benghazi is your hang up. You "know" exactly what you want to. And if it comes down to Sen. Clinton and Sarah Palin......I mean blow hard trump, the choice is clear He's a joke, a farce. He'd rebrand us as the United States of Trump within a year.

Sorry Charlie. In WWII, FDR clearly ran the war. He knew when to listen to the military and when to direct them. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Only if you believe FDR was responsible for Pearl Harbor. And I hope you don't!

So, "sorry Charlie"!

Benghazi is your hang up..... Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

My "hang up"? I'll go with the contractors and military on the ground and in the vicinity.

Not the politicians. Trump is already on record of saying he will "listen" to the military.

He's also correct on allowing unvetted and unknown people into this country. He says "NO"!

That's not a political decision, any more than is a guard gate at the base. Remember?

Only if you believe FDR was responsible for Pearl Harbor. And I hope you don't!

So, "sorry Charlie"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Why do I have to believe FDR was responsible for Pearl Harbor to say he ran the war? That happened before we were in the war(which is defined as when we declared war

My "hang up"? I'll go with the contractors and military on the ground and in the vicinity.

Not the politicians. Trump is already on record of saying he will "listen" to the military.

He's also correct on allowing unvetted and unknown people into this country. He says "NO"!

That's not a political decision, any more than is a guard gate at the base. Remember? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Your hang up. Instead of concentrating on keeping it from reoccurring you focus on crucifying the "guilty". And you'll spend as much money, man hours and tie up personnel as long as it takes for them to prove what you want to hear.

As far as trump goes, he's only where he is today because he got bankruptcy do overs. If he went down with his ship you never would have heard of him. And if you elect the trump who you love to hear say no, then for a bonus you get the guy who hates Mexicans and thinks dissenters at his rallies should be beaten.

As far as trump goes, he's only where he is today because he got bankruptcy do overs. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

What the fuck is a "bankruptcy do over"? Trump isn't my candidate but he understands real estate a lot better than you do, dickmuncher. A developer can take out 20 loans to build 20 properties, let one or two go bankrupt and hold on to the winners. Do you know what non-recourse means? Never mind, just tell everyone exactly what you mean by "bankruptcy do overs". Are you saying his creditors and the bankruptcy judge or trustees accorded him special treatment? You've obviously done your homework on this so spit it out, dickmuncher. What are you saying?
.

If I understand Munchie, FDR is responsible for every good decision made in World War II. He is also responsible for every bad decision: providing too much aid to the USSR, not bombing the railroad tracks to the concentration camps, getting tagged hard by the Japanese in both PI and at Pearl Harbor, abandoning our people in PI, choosing the wrong commander for the invasion of Naples (prolonging the war), not seeing the Battle of the Bulge before it started, losing the battles of the Coral Sea and the slot.