chuckakers 426 #1 February 5, 2004 too easy - won't even bother "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 "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 "Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e 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 "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 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons 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 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #2 February 5, 2004 Can we just put all these political/troll-infested posts into one thread? Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n2skdvn 0 #3 February 5, 2004 here ya go......if my calculations are correct SLINKY + ESCULATOR = EVERLASTING FUN my site Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #4 February 5, 2004 Shhhhh................ Dammit Chuck, they were hoping we would forget about that. Now you've gone and ruined it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #5 February 5, 2004 Event - conservative judge is nominated for Supreme Court. Attractive, educated women makes accusations of sexual harrassment. Jokes, etc. Womens groups unite to defend her. Event - uneducated, unattractive woman makes allegations of sexual harrassment against her superior. Womens groups are strangely silent. Politician pays off person. Event - again, same liberal politician is accused of s.h. Politician denies claims. Claims are proven and admitted. Womens groups are strangely silent. Event - again, same liberal politician is accused of groping and basic sexual assault. Womens groups are strangely silent. I used to respect some of the womens rights groups until they quit supporting women. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #6 February 5, 2004 Does this magically make Bush's and Cheney's lies more palatable to you? Did your mother ever accept "He did it first" as an excuse?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #7 February 5, 2004 Quote Does this magically make Bush's and Cheney's lies more palatable to you? Did your mother ever accept "He did it first" as an excuse? No, Kallend. We just have different definitions of lying. A man may state what is untrue from ignorance or misconception; hence, to impute an untruth to one is not necessarily the same as charging him with a lie. Every lie is an untruth, but not every untruth is a lie. Now in the political partisans' world it is the opposite of this. Evey untruth IS a lie. Sort of like the Bizzaro World if you know what I mean. Now I know how you Libs love to debate the meaning of the word "IS" but please try to stay focused at least for the sake of reasonable discussion Please state your definition of a lie because for you to continue to insist "Bush Lied" you would either have to have another definition or "you are........... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lee03 0 #8 February 5, 2004 Amazing, how they change their opinions with the changing of adminstration!-------- To put your life in danger from time to time ... breeds a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities. --Nevil Shute, Slide Rule Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gary350 0 #9 February 5, 2004 Wow - there's some big news. Do you think us libs didn't know that? There's a teeny tiny difference between believing something enough to censure, contain, sanction, etc. versus believing enough and embellishing enough and LYING enough regarding an IMMINENT THREAT to actually take us to WAR and lose 525 (and counting) American lives, who knows how many Iraqi lives, and cost a couple HUNDRED BILLION dollars. Tiny difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
b1jercat 0 #10 February 5, 2004 I get the feeling 1998 was a good year for you chuck. blues jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #11 February 5, 2004 Consistency means less than the truth to many of the left's most outspoken partisans. Many heard only what they wanted to hear from David Kay. If they had listened to what Mr. Kay actually said, their criticisms of Bush wouldn't hold all that much water.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
b1jercat 0 #12 February 5, 2004 Gravitymaster, you need to go camp with chuck and you can sit and reminisence about 1998. BTW you haven't ruined a thing, but it is likely the only satifaction your going to get. blues jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #13 February 5, 2004 QuoteGravitymaster, you need to go camp with chuck and you can sit and reminisence about 1998. BTW you haven't ruined a thing, but it is likely the only satifaction your going to get.Quote Perhaps you could share your Jr. High School pics from that era with us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #14 February 5, 2004 QuoteWow - there's some big news. Do you think us libs didn't know that? There's a teeny tiny difference between believing something enough to censure, contain, sanction, etc. versus believing enough and embellishing enough and LYING enough regarding an IMMINENT THREAT to actually take us to WAR and lose 525 (and counting) American lives, who knows how many Iraqi lives, and cost a couple HUNDRED BILLION dollars. Tiny difference. So let me get this right. It was ok for the Clinton Administration to bomb Iraq, and scream that they needed to get the regime changed, but it's not ok to actually follow through with it. Or is it that it would have been ok to follow through if it were a dem administration doing it. What is the double standard today?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 236 #15 February 5, 2004 Quote Does this magically make Bush's and Cheney's lies more palatable to you? Did your mother ever accept "He did it first" as an excuse? Do not be quick to attribute to conspiracy that which is easily explained by incompetence. I'm not sure from whence I acquired that truism, but I heard it somewhere. In any event, you have to be able to tell the difference in order for it to be a lie. Ignorance is another issue altogether. Are you suggesting that our Fearless Leader had done his homework for the first time in his life? Not too bloody likely. Blue skies, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckakers 426 #16 February 5, 2004 Quote Does this magically make Bush's and Cheney's lies more palatable to you? Maybe you'll get it this time... "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 "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 "Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e 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 "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 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons 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 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckakers 426 #17 February 5, 2004 QuoteI get the feeling 1998 was a good year for you chuck. Nah, I just came across that little tidbit of undeniable statements from the "Bush is lieing, wah, wah, wah" crowd and had to share it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #18 February 5, 2004 Notice that in none of these statements did Clinton, Albright, etc. give Saddam a couple of weeks to get out of town before they would launch a full-scale ground assault. Hmm, yes it was governmental policy as of 1998 to support regime change in Iraq. Support, like maybe giving Iraqi freedom fighters some backing? But then again, that wouldn't afford us any lucrative contracts on post-war oil revenues. Blah. Blah. Blah. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckakers 426 #19 February 5, 2004 Quote There's a teeny tiny difference between believing something enough to censure, contain, sanction, etc. versus believing enough and embellishing enough and LYING enough regarding an IMMINENT THREAT to actually take us to WAR and lose 525 (and counting) American lives, who knows how many Iraqi lives, and cost a couple HUNDRED BILLION dollars. Tiny difference. Once again, you miss the point. At the risk of looking silly as you pull your head from the sand, consider this: Intelligence collected - by numerous countries, not just the U.S. - clearly demonstrated that Saddam POSSESSED facilities for making WMD's, specifically nuclear weapons. There is undeniable evidence that Saddam had acquired certain equipment ONLY used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Whether or not he had produced the actual weapons was merely a matter of time. After all, why would he spend so much money to build the facilities and buy the gear to manufacture WMD's unless he planned to build them? He could've used that money to build another 100 acre mansion with solid gold faucets, door knobs, and butt plugs, or a dozens more rape and torture rooms for his sons entertainment. The undeniable fact is that Saddam HAD used chemical weapons (that's a WMD too, ya know) on HIS OWN CITIZENS!!!! If that's not proof of possession of WMD's I don't know what is. Now on to a more important point: THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ WERE LIVING UNDER THE RULE OF A BRUTAL BEAST WHO LEAD BY FEAR, INTIMIDATION, AND TORTURE. THE EVIDENCE OF BRUTALITY AGAINST EVERYONE AND ANYONE HE CHOSE IS NOT IN QUESTION. The people of Iraq are - with few exceptions - VERY happy we came. They are now FREE. Maybe some of you socialists (or worse) don't get it, but the people of the world want FREEDOM above all else. A recent survey of Iraqi citizens showed that 75% agree with the war because we are there to FREE them from the oppression they have suffered for years - indeed decades!! And while the other 25% said they don’t like the war, none said they didn’t like their newfound liberty (those must be the democrat Iraqis). The media reports only the death of Americans, the attacks on our (and several dozen other countries) troops, and any other aspect of the war that they can report as negative. What they DON’T report is the fact that the picture gets brighter everyday for the Iraqi people – AND THEY LOVE US FOR IT!! Freedom is not free. With few exceptions, the brave men and women (of all the coalition countries) fighting to rid Iraq of the vermin that stubbornly (and naively) fight to keep oppressive rule are proud to do it. I, for one, would have no problem serving there if asked, and in fact would volunteer if I met the pre-requisites. I understand that political adversaries look for reasons to disagree with the party in office. I also understand that war for any reason is an easy target for opposition. But this war was justified - evident by the dancing in the streets. Talk show host Pat Gray of Houston's KPRC said it best when replying to something a caller said: Caller: "I know we keep finding these mass graves of Iraqi citizens but..." Pat: "There is no "BUT" after a statement like "we keep finding these mass graves..." Well said, Pat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #20 February 5, 2004 We found mass graves in Kosovo too Chuck. You didn't hear alot of Repbulicans screaming "yay, we freed the Kosovoars!" did you Chuck? No. How many American lives did we lose in that one Chuck? Zero. How many mass graves do you think we'd find in say Columbia chuck? What about Indonesia? Oh wait, we like those dictators... Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #21 February 5, 2004 QuoteThe undeniable fact is that Saddam HAD used chemical weapons (that's a WMD too, ya know) on HIS OWN CITIZENS!!!! If that's not proof of possession of WMD's I don't know what is. That is only proof that he had possession of WMDs at time of use, not at the time of invasion. QuoteIntelligence collected - by numerous countries, not just the U.S. - clearly demonstrated that Saddam POSSESSED facilities for making WMD's, specifically nuclear weapons. There is undeniable evidence that Saddam had acquired certain equipment ONLY used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Whether or not he had produced the actual weapons was merely a matter of time. After all, why would he spend so much money to build the facilities and buy the gear to manufacture WMD's unless he planned to build them? He could've used that money to build another 100 acre mansion with solid gold faucets, door knobs, and butt plugs, or a dozens more rape and torture rooms for his sons entertainment. Even if that is true, which it might well be. That still did not make him a clear and present danger who, at a moment's notice, could bomb the US with a WMD. QuoteTHE PEOPLE OF IRAQ WERE LIVING UNDER THE RULE OF A BRUTAL BEAST WHO LEAD BY FEAR, INTIMIDATION, AND TORTURE. THE EVIDENCE OF BRUTALITY AGAINST EVERYONE AND ANYONE HE CHOSE IS NOT IN QUESTION. Very true, but also a very mute point. I am sure it makes you feel good about going to war, but for the millionth time, that was not one of the stated reasons for going to war. QuoteI understand that political adversaries look for reasons to disagree with the party in office. I also understand that war for any reason is an easy target for opposition. But this war was justified - evident by the dancing in the streets. The war was justified because they were dancing in the steet???? To that i can only quote from your own post: Quote pull your head from the sand Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #22 February 5, 2004 QuoteEvent - again, same liberal politician is accused of groping and basic sexual assault. Womens groups are strangely silent. Kathy Ireland actually came out and stated that NOW was silent on Clinton's mis-treatment of women because "he still supports our agendas, and that is the bigger picture". It was the height of hypocrisy, and I was glad NOW didn't (and still doesn't) represent all that many women. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crapflinger2000 1 #23 February 5, 2004 I ain't a liberal, but I am 100% against the war in Iraq. Just because I think a republican is full of shit doesn't mean that I agree with a democrat. Fuck, do YOU really see the world in such a binary fashion? [robot voice on] "I - like - George - Bush - therefore - I - agree - 100% - with - everything - he - ever -says." [robot voice off] OK, so the intel has always been fucked up. BUSH is the one who took us to war on charges that even the White House is beginning to say, "uhhhhhhh... maybe we were wrong about this..." Plus, the reports that came out of the intel community show an extreme willingness to ignore contradictory intel that would show a lack of WMD, as well as a trampling of approved and proven vetting procedures. There was no evidence of this under Clinton (at least we have not heard of it). This was in an issue of the New Yorker. If the New Yorker is too left-leaning for you, I give you the US Army War College... http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.pdf ... hardly a bastion of liberal pansies. This report pretty much slams the Iraq war as useless and hurting the war on terror... Your post sets up a straw man... "Clinton and the left thought so TOO! Whaaaaa!" BFD. Clinton did not take us to war over it. __________________________________________________ What would Vic Mackey do? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gary350 0 #24 February 5, 2004 Outstanding. Thank you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #25 February 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteWow - there's some big news. Do you think us libs didn't know that? There's a teeny tiny difference between believing something enough to censure, contain, sanction, etc. versus believing enough and embellishing enough and LYING enough regarding an IMMINENT THREAT to actually take us to WAR and lose 525 (and counting) American lives, who knows how many Iraqi lives, and cost a couple HUNDRED BILLION dollars. Tiny difference. So let me get this right. It was ok for the Clinton Administration to bomb Iraq, and scream that they needed to get the regime changed, but it's not ok to actually follow through with it. Or is it that it would have been ok to follow through if it were a dem administration doing it. What is the double standard today? That's funny, you'd think that the point I made is an arguable one - Guess not - must be undeniable. SweetI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 1 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
turtlespeed 226 #14 February 5, 2004 QuoteWow - there's some big news. Do you think us libs didn't know that? There's a teeny tiny difference between believing something enough to censure, contain, sanction, etc. versus believing enough and embellishing enough and LYING enough regarding an IMMINENT THREAT to actually take us to WAR and lose 525 (and counting) American lives, who knows how many Iraqi lives, and cost a couple HUNDRED BILLION dollars. Tiny difference. So let me get this right. It was ok for the Clinton Administration to bomb Iraq, and scream that they needed to get the regime changed, but it's not ok to actually follow through with it. Or is it that it would have been ok to follow through if it were a dem administration doing it. What is the double standard today?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #15 February 5, 2004 Quote Does this magically make Bush's and Cheney's lies more palatable to you? Did your mother ever accept "He did it first" as an excuse? Do not be quick to attribute to conspiracy that which is easily explained by incompetence. I'm not sure from whence I acquired that truism, but I heard it somewhere. In any event, you have to be able to tell the difference in order for it to be a lie. Ignorance is another issue altogether. Are you suggesting that our Fearless Leader had done his homework for the first time in his life? Not too bloody likely. Blue skies, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #16 February 5, 2004 Quote Does this magically make Bush's and Cheney's lies more palatable to you? Maybe you'll get it this time... "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 "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 "Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e 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 "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 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons 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 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #17 February 5, 2004 QuoteI get the feeling 1998 was a good year for you chuck. Nah, I just came across that little tidbit of undeniable statements from the "Bush is lieing, wah, wah, wah" crowd and had to share it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #18 February 5, 2004 Notice that in none of these statements did Clinton, Albright, etc. give Saddam a couple of weeks to get out of town before they would launch a full-scale ground assault. Hmm, yes it was governmental policy as of 1998 to support regime change in Iraq. Support, like maybe giving Iraqi freedom fighters some backing? But then again, that wouldn't afford us any lucrative contracts on post-war oil revenues. Blah. Blah. Blah. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #19 February 5, 2004 Quote There's a teeny tiny difference between believing something enough to censure, contain, sanction, etc. versus believing enough and embellishing enough and LYING enough regarding an IMMINENT THREAT to actually take us to WAR and lose 525 (and counting) American lives, who knows how many Iraqi lives, and cost a couple HUNDRED BILLION dollars. Tiny difference. Once again, you miss the point. At the risk of looking silly as you pull your head from the sand, consider this: Intelligence collected - by numerous countries, not just the U.S. - clearly demonstrated that Saddam POSSESSED facilities for making WMD's, specifically nuclear weapons. There is undeniable evidence that Saddam had acquired certain equipment ONLY used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Whether or not he had produced the actual weapons was merely a matter of time. After all, why would he spend so much money to build the facilities and buy the gear to manufacture WMD's unless he planned to build them? He could've used that money to build another 100 acre mansion with solid gold faucets, door knobs, and butt plugs, or a dozens more rape and torture rooms for his sons entertainment. The undeniable fact is that Saddam HAD used chemical weapons (that's a WMD too, ya know) on HIS OWN CITIZENS!!!! If that's not proof of possession of WMD's I don't know what is. Now on to a more important point: THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ WERE LIVING UNDER THE RULE OF A BRUTAL BEAST WHO LEAD BY FEAR, INTIMIDATION, AND TORTURE. THE EVIDENCE OF BRUTALITY AGAINST EVERYONE AND ANYONE HE CHOSE IS NOT IN QUESTION. The people of Iraq are - with few exceptions - VERY happy we came. They are now FREE. Maybe some of you socialists (or worse) don't get it, but the people of the world want FREEDOM above all else. A recent survey of Iraqi citizens showed that 75% agree with the war because we are there to FREE them from the oppression they have suffered for years - indeed decades!! And while the other 25% said they don’t like the war, none said they didn’t like their newfound liberty (those must be the democrat Iraqis). The media reports only the death of Americans, the attacks on our (and several dozen other countries) troops, and any other aspect of the war that they can report as negative. What they DON’T report is the fact that the picture gets brighter everyday for the Iraqi people – AND THEY LOVE US FOR IT!! Freedom is not free. With few exceptions, the brave men and women (of all the coalition countries) fighting to rid Iraq of the vermin that stubbornly (and naively) fight to keep oppressive rule are proud to do it. I, for one, would have no problem serving there if asked, and in fact would volunteer if I met the pre-requisites. I understand that political adversaries look for reasons to disagree with the party in office. I also understand that war for any reason is an easy target for opposition. But this war was justified - evident by the dancing in the streets. Talk show host Pat Gray of Houston's KPRC said it best when replying to something a caller said: Caller: "I know we keep finding these mass graves of Iraqi citizens but..." Pat: "There is no "BUT" after a statement like "we keep finding these mass graves..." Well said, Pat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #20 February 5, 2004 We found mass graves in Kosovo too Chuck. You didn't hear alot of Repbulicans screaming "yay, we freed the Kosovoars!" did you Chuck? No. How many American lives did we lose in that one Chuck? Zero. How many mass graves do you think we'd find in say Columbia chuck? What about Indonesia? Oh wait, we like those dictators... Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #21 February 5, 2004 QuoteThe undeniable fact is that Saddam HAD used chemical weapons (that's a WMD too, ya know) on HIS OWN CITIZENS!!!! If that's not proof of possession of WMD's I don't know what is. That is only proof that he had possession of WMDs at time of use, not at the time of invasion. QuoteIntelligence collected - by numerous countries, not just the U.S. - clearly demonstrated that Saddam POSSESSED facilities for making WMD's, specifically nuclear weapons. There is undeniable evidence that Saddam had acquired certain equipment ONLY used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Whether or not he had produced the actual weapons was merely a matter of time. After all, why would he spend so much money to build the facilities and buy the gear to manufacture WMD's unless he planned to build them? He could've used that money to build another 100 acre mansion with solid gold faucets, door knobs, and butt plugs, or a dozens more rape and torture rooms for his sons entertainment. Even if that is true, which it might well be. That still did not make him a clear and present danger who, at a moment's notice, could bomb the US with a WMD. QuoteTHE PEOPLE OF IRAQ WERE LIVING UNDER THE RULE OF A BRUTAL BEAST WHO LEAD BY FEAR, INTIMIDATION, AND TORTURE. THE EVIDENCE OF BRUTALITY AGAINST EVERYONE AND ANYONE HE CHOSE IS NOT IN QUESTION. Very true, but also a very mute point. I am sure it makes you feel good about going to war, but for the millionth time, that was not one of the stated reasons for going to war. QuoteI understand that political adversaries look for reasons to disagree with the party in office. I also understand that war for any reason is an easy target for opposition. But this war was justified - evident by the dancing in the streets. The war was justified because they were dancing in the steet???? To that i can only quote from your own post: Quote pull your head from the sand Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #22 February 5, 2004 QuoteEvent - again, same liberal politician is accused of groping and basic sexual assault. Womens groups are strangely silent. Kathy Ireland actually came out and stated that NOW was silent on Clinton's mis-treatment of women because "he still supports our agendas, and that is the bigger picture". It was the height of hypocrisy, and I was glad NOW didn't (and still doesn't) represent all that many women. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crapflinger2000 1 #23 February 5, 2004 I ain't a liberal, but I am 100% against the war in Iraq. Just because I think a republican is full of shit doesn't mean that I agree with a democrat. Fuck, do YOU really see the world in such a binary fashion? [robot voice on] "I - like - George - Bush - therefore - I - agree - 100% - with - everything - he - ever -says." [robot voice off] OK, so the intel has always been fucked up. BUSH is the one who took us to war on charges that even the White House is beginning to say, "uhhhhhhh... maybe we were wrong about this..." Plus, the reports that came out of the intel community show an extreme willingness to ignore contradictory intel that would show a lack of WMD, as well as a trampling of approved and proven vetting procedures. There was no evidence of this under Clinton (at least we have not heard of it). This was in an issue of the New Yorker. If the New Yorker is too left-leaning for you, I give you the US Army War College... http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.pdf ... hardly a bastion of liberal pansies. This report pretty much slams the Iraq war as useless and hurting the war on terror... Your post sets up a straw man... "Clinton and the left thought so TOO! Whaaaaa!" BFD. Clinton did not take us to war over it. __________________________________________________ What would Vic Mackey do? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gary350 0 #24 February 5, 2004 Outstanding. Thank you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #25 February 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteWow - there's some big news. Do you think us libs didn't know that? There's a teeny tiny difference between believing something enough to censure, contain, sanction, etc. versus believing enough and embellishing enough and LYING enough regarding an IMMINENT THREAT to actually take us to WAR and lose 525 (and counting) American lives, who knows how many Iraqi lives, and cost a couple HUNDRED BILLION dollars. Tiny difference. So let me get this right. It was ok for the Clinton Administration to bomb Iraq, and scream that they needed to get the regime changed, but it's not ok to actually follow through with it. Or is it that it would have been ok to follow through if it were a dem administration doing it. What is the double standard today? That's funny, you'd think that the point I made is an arguable one - Guess not - must be undeniable. SweetI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
