Dr. Pauls take on Syria,...two years ago.

[HawktimusPrime]

According to Paul, the latest rhetoric from the White House is something he’s seen before.

“Because of this use of gas, the president claimed, Syria had crossed his ‘red line’ and the US must begin to arm the rebels fighting to overthrow the Syrian government,” Paul wrote. But at the same time, Paul called into question a previous report from the Washington Post, in which the paper cited White House officials as having decided “weeks ago” to arm Syrian rebels.

“[I]n other words, it was made at a time when the intelligence community did not believe ‘with high confidence’ that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons,” Paul said of that decision. “Further, this plan to transfer weapons to the Syrian rebels had become policy much earlier than that, as the Washington Post reported that the CIA had expanded over the past year its secret bases in Jordan to prepare for the transfer of weapons to the rebels in Syria.”

On his website, Paul wrote that things are starting to seem all too similar to what preceded the invasion of Baghdad in 2003.

“The process was identical to the massive deception campaign that led us into the Iraq War,” Paul claimed.

Just like under President George W. Bush, Paul said the Obama administration is “fixing the intelligence and facts” so it can justify an already determined policy.

“And Congress just goes along, just as they did the last time,” Paul wrote.


NOTE: the rebels mentioned ended up being aligned with ISIS. So we are at war with ISIS, and at the same time trying to take down the Syrian regime. Which is funny because Syria is fighting with ISIS. The same ISIS that took claim for Paris. Did they use the weapons that we gave them?


Don't you just love how this all works?

 

[Huey Grey]

Obama isn't claiming that ISIS has WMDs, the nuke, or tried to kill his daddy. So how is this like Iraq again?

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Obama isn't claiming that ISIS has WMDs, the nuke, or tried to kill his daddy. So how is this like Iraq again?

That's a flat out lie. Care to change your position before I completely WMD it out of the water?

 

[Huey Grey]

That's a flat out lie. Care to change your position before I completely WMD it out of the water?

With what? Pictures of WMDs rusting out of their shells because Bush lied about Iraq having an active program? Have at it.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

With what? Pictures of WMDs rusting out of their shells because Bush lied about Iraq having an active program? Have at it.

"Today we mark an important achievement in our ongoing effort to counter the spread of weapons of mass destruction by eliminating Syria's declared chemical weapons stockpile," Obama said in a written statement issued in Washington after he broke from his summer vacation in Massachusetts to spend two days at the White House.


“I want to make it absolutely clear to Assad and those under his command, the world is watching,” Obama said in a speech at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington. “The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable.”

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Obama isn't claiming that ISIS has WMDs, the nuke, or tried to kill his daddy. So how is this like Iraq again?

Wait, you said ISIS, I was talking about Syria. Syria is the country Paul is talking about here genius. Way to twist that around.

Plus, we know ISIS has weapons. We gave them to them.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

With what? Pictures of WMDs rusting out of their shells because Bush lied about Iraq having an active program? Have at it.

Speaking of lies about WMD's, let's go back to 1998.

When the lies started:


"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 Clinton, Feb. 4, 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.

"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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"We 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 Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others
Oct. 9, 1998.




Kerry continues with this thought in 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


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.




Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, lying as usual:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002