Here is about 20 quotes from leading Democrats saying he had or was building WMD's http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm Of course there are number videos of Democrats blasting Saddam and pounding the war drums. At least Bush went to Congress unlike Obama. It's well know that U.S., British, French, Israeli and other intelligence agencies concluded that Saddam had WMD. We still don't know what was moved to the desert in Syria. The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" â the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment â was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2554633...frica/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/
That's the dream of the left. Get the Republicans divided and keep them home next November. I think everyone will get behind whom ever is the nominee. Any sore losers running 3rd party like Gary Johnson need to be ignored. We can't take 4 more years of BHO.
Sure, there are plenty of Democratic war mongers, as eager to promote war hysteria as the Republicans. I'm not partisan about this. Iraq did have substantial quantities of uranium oxide left over from their earlier nuclear program (prior to 2000) and that is the material referred to in the MSNBC article. But the "Yellowcake from Nigeria" scare that was going around in 2002 (for the purposes of scaring up war fever) was based on fraudulent documents.
To be fair, some P&R regulars that typically angrily disagree are pleased to be in agreement for once.
Do a search on Chomsky and start reading. You begin to see a pattern of attack if you bring him up. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/searc...by=lastpost&sortorder=descending&pagenumber=8 So interesting to see how vehemently people argued in the past and were later proven wrong. But no one comes back and calls them out on it. People are more interested in the arguing then in the argument.
You've lost touch with reality. I gave you a list showing that the UN, EU and 8 nations to include Switzerland have sanctions against Iran which BTW is the largest state sponsor of terrorism on earth, and you wrote this in response? OTOH, you spew antisemitic nonsense about Israel as if they're the problem and rail against the "Zionists" and "neocons" who support them. Reality check: Israel isn't the problem. Radical Islam is the problem. And appeasement under the euphemism of "multiculturalism" has failed spectacularly: In the UK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994 In France: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/February/Frances-Sarkozy-Multiculturalism-Has-Failed/ In Germany: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed In the Netherlands: http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2219/netherlands-abandons-multiculturalism And it will fail everywhere else because of radical Islam's intrinsic nature. Making friends and accommodations don't work. Tell me how all these examples are somehow Israel's fault or Zionist propaganda.
I am well aware that people like you will call me an anti-Semite for not wanting to start a war with Iran. Fine. That's better than being a mass murderer, which is what anybody who starts a war is. Your links are to a bunch of sites that say that multiculturalism has failed. Well, I agree with them. Mexicans belong in Mexico. Iranians belong in Iran. And Americans belong in America. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to visit other countries, but nobody has a right to invade other countries or try to impose their own way of life on some other nation. Ironically, neocons are some of the biggest advocates of multiculturalism. (They are war mongers in foreign policy but tend to take middle of the road Democratic positions on domestic policy.)
Doesn't anyone else think as I do that Iran is just trying to manipulate the price of crude oil? Their threat today gave oil a nice little price spike. I've read that every cent above around $85.00 per barrel is a huge windfall for Iran and finances their purchases from Pakistan, China and North Korea. They need that oil price to be high to realize their nuclear ambitions. It is the only thing that makes sense. There is no other rational reason to threaten closure of the Straight. They've no intention of taking on the USN directly. Their behavior may be reprehensible but that should not be confused with stupidity. Frankly they have played a superb chess game against the West. Even Iran's threats against Israel should be examined for the underlying motivation. I think it is more about proxy control of the Lebanon and Syria and their perceived leadership role in the ME.