Democrats, can you answer this?

Question

OK, democrats suddenly believe our intel which is saying Iran ceased its nuclear ambitions several years ago. This is the same agency that told us Iraq had WMD's which the democrats refuted at that time. We attacked Iraq on this issue and the democrats have chastised republicans for trusting the intel. Please, how can you have it both ways?

Answer 1

This is an excellent question, which means any answer given my a Democrat will not be an honest, straight forward answer.
The basis of the question will be avoided and instead they will question your judgment for asking such a difficult question.

I say this because while watching the Democratic debate one evening only 2 of the candidates could answer a question "yes or no" when asked to only answer yes or no. Instead they tried to explain their answer.

Well good luck and I'm interested to see what kind of responses you get here, and I'm guessing at least 6 "thumbs down" for my response.

I guess you missed the fact that any "democrat" who answers this question won't give an honest answer and try to steer the "debate" back onto the person asking the question. This is my point and that is my response.

Democrats want it both ways, and this is the War on terror, not the war on "we thought he had WMD's" or the war on "those responsible for 9/11” There is hard intelligence that Saddam's sons trained, equipped and funded bin Laden and Al-Qaida. More intelligence people seem to ignore.
Clinton(s) thought he had WMD, and Saddam refused inspectors access to buildings. This seems suspicious to me. Of course there are the U2 pictures of the materials and missiles being taken from suspected factories. Most of the UN Sanctions from the first Gulf War authorized force for failure to follow the UN sanctions, which he clearly did.

These are things that seem to be forgotten by the Democrats and people against the war. Of course, the fact that the Dems also voted to authorize the war does not help their cause either.

Answer 2

You cannot put the blame solely on the Dems. Take a good look in the mirror and realize that both parties are guilty of using information to satisfy their wants.

The Dems did not refuse the WMD at the time proposed. I don't know if you remember, but the Dems also authorized the War on Terror. So, what is your point? The Dems agreed with it, then became more knowledgeable and decided that it's time for the troops to come home.

As far as trusting the intel, you have told us for years that the intel was correct and that Sadam moved the weapons. So, you're telling us to trust the intel then, but not now. Please how can YOU have it both ways?

EDIT: Colonel, Where is your response? Or are you unable to come up with an answer other than bashing the left?

Answer 3

You can continue to confuse the issue all you want, but NO ONE EVER DISPUTED IRAQ HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

As you either ignore or are unwilling to admit, WMDs include Chemical, Biological and Nuclear Weapons, so called "Mass Destruction" weapons because they do not differentiate between military and civillian casualties. We know for a FACT Hussein had the Chemical weapons (such as mustard gas) as well as biological weapons (such as anthrax or any of a couple dozen other "super" strains of existing disease causing pathogens). We know this for a certainty because Reagan SOLD them to Hussein to "protect" him and Iraq from Iranian aggression. He then used them on his own subjects, while the US stood by and did nothing.

People (INCLUDING those same intel services) disputed Hussein had NUCLEAR Weapons and was working to deliver them to the US. There was no threat of imminent harm to the US at any time from Iraq, and Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell are ALL on record as saying there was never a Nuclear threat from Iraq, in public addresses and speeches from BEFORE the Sept 11 attacks (which Iraq ALSO had nothing to do with).

Powell has SINCE gone on record on "Meet the Press", admitting the whole Iraqi "nuclear threat" was hogwash, just a justification to invade a country which had never attacked the US nor THREATENED to attack the US.

Answer 4

Democrats have nearly always wanted it both ways on any debatable issue.

Without their cluttered brain waves emitting volumes of poor reasons for lack of being capable or supportive of rational (and viable reasons)...

You add in that in this case, weapons of mass destruction intelligence, provided by OUR own Country... And a host of intelligence provided to us by other Countries.... All pointing out the same exact issues, worries or concerns...

Which at the time the Director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was none other than Michigan Senator Carl Levin (Dem).

This is the dude that convinced all the democrats to sit up and listen to what he had to say about Iraq... They did (because they don't believe written proof from republicans) and it lead to a landslide vote in favor of going to war with Iraq.

No matter how many times a democrat tries to debunk truth with fiction... Proof prevails and they look like fools in the end.


So now you have the democrats REELING and saying, "You can't blame it all on the dems."

lmao

Answer 5

It appears to be a major flaw in Dubya's leadership. Either he and his pals purposely created a byzantine bureaucracy to keep intel and info convoluted and indecipherable or they're just massively incompetent.

Answer 6

How can Republicans have it both ways? All the reports conflict each other so, I'd say no one knows the right answer other than Iran at the moment.

Answer 7

Your assuming we believe everything we're told. You are wrong on all accounts. Including why we into Iraq.

Answer 8

actually our own CIA said the intel that claimed Saddam had WMDs was likely inaccurate.
The only evidence they were using were the mobile labs.
He had them prior to Desert storm 1, but no one decided to find out if his program continued or not.
Our own CIA didn't even see the Niger Yellow cake papers until after the invasion.
Bush used British and Israel intel, and didn't wait for our own intel to confirm it.
This time, time was given for our own intel agencies to do their job.

Answer 9

I agree ... why should we believe any intelligence report?

why should we believe anything that comes out of GW Bush's mouth?

both have shown in recent history to be totally untrustworthy

yet, I don't need a intelligence report to know that Iran is no threat to the US

Answer 10

no body cares about religion farts, is just the media that is saying this and that about it, who tha kucf cares about what religion you are? no body or are you spying on your neighbor about their religion? no i dont think so, as of matter of fact religion is an instrument the media uses to keep this country divided for their own agenda. you know the media better but is nothing we can do.