First, how do we know what that guy said is true and he had all the information?
First, how do we know what that guy said is true and he had all the information?
Second, people like Fenton are going to automatically assume it's true and attack anything that contradicts it.
The mass "Impeach Obama" crowd on this isn't making it easier to actually get to the bottom.
And this is exactly what Maggie was discussing.
We say it here, it comes out there.
Seriously, people are going to think I'm your puppet master if you keep doing this.
But both sides are going to twist it.
See Fenton, He's 100% impeach Obama on this (which stems from his Absolute Democrat Hatred Syndrome)
Getting the absolute truth on this is going to be nearly impossible in the short term.
A mysterious Libyan ship -- reportedly carrying weapons and bound for Syrian rebels -- may have some link to the Sept. 11 terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Fox News has learned.
Through shipping records, Fox News has confirmed that the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means "The Victory," was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun -- 35 miles from the Syrian border -- on Sept. 6, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed during an extended assault by more than 100 Islamist militants.
On the night of Sept. 11, in what would become his last known public meeting, Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and escorted him out of the consulate front gate one hour before the assault began at approximately 9:35 p.m. local time.
Although what was discussed at the meeting is not public, a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists. And although the negotiation said to have taken place may have had nothing to do with the attack on the consulate later that night or the Libyan mystery ship, it could explain why Stevens was travelling in such a volatile region on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
Read more: Was Syrian weapons shipment factor in ambassador
First, how do we know what that guy said is true and he had all the information?
They don't mean anything to you because you have a closed mind. You can't see that both parties are to blame. That Clinton thought there were WMD's, Madeline Albright thought there were WMD's, Sandy Berger thought there were WMD's, Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry thought there were WMD's, Nancy Pelosi thought there were WMD's, Senator Bob Graham thought there were WMD's, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, Henry Waxman, Hillary Clinton and countless other Democrats thought there were WMD's.
And further, when the rubber met the road, 111 Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq.
Nope. You, and others like you, hold firm to your completely baseless belief that President Bush acted autonomously and irrationally.
What a complete waste of political thought.
I don't see an impeachment movement out of this. You have to break the law, not make incredibly stupid and cowardly decisions, and we don't even know that Obama was the one that made the decision. Don't get me wrong, you'll get some who get upset and cry for it, but it's unrealistic so it goes nowhere.
I think this was a way to get Hillary out of it gracefully.
Those statements show me nothing I didn't know already. Both republicans and democrats lead us into the war in Iraq. I always knew that. Hillary Clinton voted for the war, and that fact has never escaped me for a long time.
The fact that people said or believed there were WMD and made those statements prior to the war, are meaningless since they made those statements while not promoting the Bush Doctrine or the war.
Let's remember how the debate went prior to invading. There was the glaring fact that other countries outright had WMDs, while others were intent on making them... North Korea and Iran. Why invade Iraq on the suspicion of WMDs when we knew for a fact that Iran was enriching uranium all the way back then?
Look at Iran today. What if we invaded them instead and nipped the problem in the butt?
And then there was a second debate point, so what if Iraq did have WMDs? Is that even a valid reason to strike them, and if so, when should the USA stop waging a war on nations with WMDs? Would Iran be next, would North Korea be next? When would America stop?
If they had WMDs, big freaking deal, we don't police the world and start invading countries for having the same weapons we have.
The Bush Admin didn't even have enough evidence that Iraq was a high level threat, let alone more threatening than North Korea was at that time.
On the contrary, the Bush administration had loads of evidence of both of those. That is why people who had every political incentive to ferret out falsehood in the Bush Administrations' claims (ie: Democrats), but who had access to the same evidence all came out and made the same claims.
North Korea was openly making nuclear weapons in front of the world, and talking aggressively to America. That was scary.
Meh. Sort of. It was scarier when they started exporting the technology to Syria (and by proxy Iran). However, they weren't doing that in 2003, as the NKorean nuclear test didn't come until 2006.
The war wasn't internationally accepted, despite the argument of WMDs.
On the contrary, the coalition that went into Iraq in 2003 was bigger than the coalition that had gone into Kuwait in 1991. People confused "Germany and France" with "international acceptance".
Combined that with the fact that people actually believed WMDs were possible is a moot point to me. I sided with Ron Paul and others like him. So what if they have WMDs or they possibly have them, it's not just cause to preemptively strike them and wage an aggressive, international campaign.
On the contrary, just as a felon purchasing an automatic weapon and a few tons of low-grade explosive is good reason for a police raid here in the States, someone like Saddam pursuing WMD is good reason for intervention abroad.
So what about your open mindedness? Can you accept people like myself thought the WMDs were moot, because regardless if they existed
I can understand that. I take comfort in the fact that at the time you were a small minority, and worry that more people may be coming to that irresponsible conclusion as a way of avoiding trouble in the short term (and creating more of it in the long term). Iran getting nukes, for example, would not be moot. It would be (in the words of the VP) "a big flippin deal".
or not doesn't negate the fact that we don't support the Bush Doctrine?
I'm not sure what you mean by "the Bush Doctrine". Broadly, the Bush Doctrine was the notion that (as much as we were able) we should make the improvement of human liberty abroad a key component of our foreign policy. You seem to think it has something to do with WMD's.
Simply having WMDs doesn't mean you should be invaded and destroyed by American forces. That's not the way our foreign policy worked before the Bush Admin, and that's not the way it continued to work under his Admin.
It is never the way it worked under his administration. Britain, our closest ally, had WMD's. If, however, you are a psychotic abusive tyrant with a history of WMD employment, connections to terrorism, and attacks on your neighbors, then yes, you shouldn't have access to the worlds' most terrifying weapons.
It just wasn't economically feasible and it was a disaster.
It was mishandled from post invasion through 2006/2007, at which point we began to fight a proper counterinsurgency, and then succeeded, only to have the effort sort of prematurely cut off in 2011, with the result that the country has since deteriorated. It was, however, at all times economically feasible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?