what the dems have said about wmd's and iraq

[bodypilot90 0]

is amazing how the facts are unimportant to so many, and how soon they forget! (Read through to the bottom!)

"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 [here], 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 time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US 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 (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), 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 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, A), 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 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

"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

SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED-THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!

[quade 4]

Yeah, see, here's the difference . . .

The U.S., typically when they see an imminent threat will take action. We blow up stuff all the time: weapons plants, construction sites for nuke plants . . . stuff like that. We do it, all the time. No issues.

Clinton stated he thought Iraq had WMDs, but here's the very important point that GWB apologist seem to fail to recognize, he obviously didn't think the U.S. was in imminent danger or he would have just blown up the facilities and he certainly didn't see the need to invade and overthrow a country.

The information Clinton had clearly didn't rise to that level.

It was only after the panic of September 11, 2001 that a President would be able to get anyone to launch this kind of action, based on that sketchy of information, to invade and overthrow an entire country.

So, I guess the upshot of my post is . . .

Stop simply copying and pasting the propaganda of the apologists and use your own brain to understand why things did or did not happen and under what circumstances people are willing to start an war.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Luv2Fall 0]

Less the propaganda and the war, the dems are no different.....they're all cut from the same cloth except in how they pander to those who keep them in office....behind the scenes it's all about the money.........everyone is right and everyone is wrong......both the Republicans and the Dems.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Clinton stated he thought Iraq had WMDs, but here's the very important point that GWB apologist seem to fail to recognize, he obviously didn't think the U.S. was in imminent danger or he would have just blown up the facilities and he certainly didn't see the need to invade and overthrow a country.

Kinda like Somalia? What was that all about? Was Aidid an immenent threat to the US? I'd say that was where Clinton learned that he didn't have the stomach to send US troops into action. I'd think that THAT was more reason why he only ordered airstrikes and resisted using force.

Quote

Stop simply copying and pasting the propaganda of the apologists and use your own brain to understand why things did or did not happen and under what circumstances people are willing to start an war.

So let's not be bothered by what people actually said, right? Forget the facts, let's just be mad at Bush! Did these people say these things or not? I guess it's okay to talk tough, as long as you don't plan on doing anything about it, right?

The bottom line is that if these were comments from Republicans while a Dem was in office, people would be screaming about how bad they "flip-flop"ed and wanting some answers. But since it was Dems, people should ignore it because someone already said it before? How about actually holding some of these guys to their words? Or are people just going to become dem-apologists?

Oh, hello again!

[quade 4]

I'm not saying ignore the words of the past.

I AM saying that you need to look at them in context and not simply parrot them as propaganda as this cut and paste piece did.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Trent 0]

Let's hear what they really meant by saying what they said then? If those quotes are grossly out of context, no problem... it'd be interesting to hear how (paraphrased) "I think Saddam should be removed, we know he has WMD, he must be stopped with force" was taken out of context. Maybe the original quote was something like, "I think Saddam should be removed, we know he has WMD, he must be stopped with force.... just kidding!"

Maybe?

Oh, hello again!

[quade 4]

No, you still don't understand.

I'm not saying that the quotes were taken out of contaxt, but rather that some people are taking the entire concept out of a much larger context.

I really don't know how to make it any more clear.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I really don't know how to make it any more clear.

We don't understand you because you are wrong.

I really don't know how to make it any more clear.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[quade 4]

Quote

We don't understand you because you are wrong.

That statement is simply childish.

You don't seem to care about any actual premise one way or the other -- only to say "black" to my "white". Only to "win", which, you really can't because this isn't actually game we're playing. It's supposed to be a type of conversation.

Go back to my original answer to the original post and re-read my premise.

Basically, a person can believe another government has WMDs and would obviously like to have them removed, but there's a difference between believing some country has them and taking action in the form of starting a war -- especially before and after a major terrorist attack.

I'm really sorry that you can't seem to see the difference in this because I believe it helps explain the behavior of both the current and previous Administrations, but you seem to only be interested in the partisian bickering aspects of this.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

That statement is simply childish.

Your statement seemed childish to me.

Quote

Basically, a person can believe another government has WMDs and would obviously like to have them removed, but there's a difference between believing some country has them and taking action in the form of starting a war

There is a big difference between believing some country has them (I think there is plenty of 'context' to conclude the Clinton admin did), and being willing to do something substantial about it.

I heard it described very well today what it is that puts liberals into the apoplectic (sp?) fit that is so common of late. GWB has moral clarity. He has no ambiguity about what is right and wrong on some basic issues. This is intensely irritating to those without such clarity.

I think you should be willing to take my blunt manner in the same way you expected Trent to take yours.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Michele 1]

Quote

I really don't know how to make it any more clear.

I understand what you're saying, Quade.

I disagree with it, but I understand it.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

GWB has moral clarity. He has no ambiguity about what is right and wrong on some basic issues. This is intensely irritating to those without such clarity.

You're misunderstanding. It's not that we have a problem with him having a clear agenda. It's that his agenda is diametrically opposed to ours. Ours being just about half of the country. Someone can have a clear vision and agenda of how the country should be run without alienating almost half the population. There is a middle ground. A middle ground doesn't mean non-decisive, it means not basing all decisision based on your PERSONAL agenda, but rather doing what the population as a whole wants. When the people are split down the middle, you have to find compromise. That's not pandering to polls, that's representing the people as a whole.

This president does not represent my interests, my beliefs, or my goals. In fact, he doesn't seem to care one bit. That is what upsets me about him.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Someone can have a clear vision and agenda of how the country should be run without alienating almost half the population.....it means not basing all decisision based on your PERSONAL agenda, but rather doing what the population as a whole wants.

You are speaking of someone who has no backbone, who changes positions based on the whims of the (very unscientific and subject to being wrong) opinion poles. You are speaking of John Kerry. By your definition of a good president (ie doing what the population as a whole wants) he will outlaw gay marriage, go back in time and never attack Iraq (opinions changed around December), get rid of affirmative action, we would be handling our retirements not the Social Security system, get rid of bilingual education, outlaw partial birth abortion, not grant special rights to gay individuals, keep the death penalty, and public prayer would return to schools. How many of these are part of the Democratic platform?

These are just the polls I could find on the internet. I'm sure there are more.

I prefer a president who has a clear vision of what he believes is right and has the back bone to see the vision to completion even when it is unpopular. I vote for a president who I believe has the most character and judgement to do what is right for the country (not necessarily just right for me) and not bow to every opinion poll or special interest group. All politicians do it to some extent, it is a fact of American politics, but some more than others.

Kerry has flip-flopped on so many issues I'm not sure where he stands on most things. I do know that he has no character and I don't trust him to be president of the U.S. I'm sure he is exactly what you are looking for though.

I have this weird belief that you should support your country during a time of war. You voice your dissent before. Once it is started, we should be one team until it is won. I do not believe that criticizing your government during a time of war is ever supporting the country or being patriotic as most liberals try to get us to believe.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

***
I have this weird belief that you should support your country during a time of war. You voice your dissent before. Once it is started, we should be one team until it is won. I do not believe that criticizing your government during a time of war is ever supporting the country or being patriotic as most liberals try to get us to believe.

I find it wierd that you give such unquestioning support to an administration that lies, is obsessed with secrecy, engages in pre-emptive foreign wars, is building an empire, and has no fiscal responsibility, all of which are contrary to the values embued as American by the Founding Fathers. The Bush/Cheney administration is the most un-American in recent history.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[crwmike 0]

Quote

Quote

***
I have this weird belief that you should support your country during a time of war. You voice your dissent before. Once it is started, we should be one team until it is won. I do not believe that criticizing your government during a time of war is ever supporting the country or being patriotic as most liberals try to get us to believe.

I find it wierd that you give such unquestioning support to an administration that lies, is obsessed with secrecy, engages in pre-emptive foreign wars, is building an empire, and has no fiscal responsibility, all of which are contrary to the values embued as American by the Founding Fathers. The Bush/Cheney administration is the most un-American in recent history.

Some people are just wired that way, John. Not much you can do about it.

Michael

[quade 4]

Quote

I have this weird belief that you should support your country during a time of war. You voice your dissent before. Once it is started, we should be one team until it is won. I do not believe that criticizing your government during a time of war is ever supporting the country or being patriotic as most liberals try to get us to believe.

On the other hand, blindly following the leader without question has caused numerous problems throughout history.

I think a great leader isn't one that follows the polls and does what the majority wants him to do, but has a clear vision and the ability to gather consensus to achieve those goals.

In this respect, GWB is a miserable failure who has squandered the support of not only the majority of his own country, but most of the planet.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Trent 0]

It really really seems like some people have more respect for someone who will talk tough and not back it up. I DO understand what you are saying, but I'm seeing it differently. I see a bunch of people taking a hawkish stance on using force in Iraq, but unable to stomach DOING something about it. It seems that a lot of people in this country simply favor rhetoric over action.

And Quade, you overlooked my Somalia comment. Bill did that, then his administration let the situation get fucked. He didn't do much after that. What is your opinion on that? He did try to do something, but lacked the character to see it through.

There's some old quote out there: I have more respect for a man who means what he says, even if he's wrong.

Oh, hello again!

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

There's some old quote out there: I have more respect for a man who means what he says, even if he's wrong.

So you respected Stalin, Mao, Ho, Idi Amin...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

That's ridiculous. Because someone can put aside his PERSONAL interests and do what is best for his constituency, he has no back bone. What a crock. There are just as many liberals who are just as unyielding in their opinions, but would you follow them because they are consistent and never wavering? How about Ted Turner for President? I bet you'd be singing his praises.

Hey, you know who has a clear agenda and sticks to it? Ralph Nader! There's a candidate for you. Please. Don't try to act like you're awed by Bush integrity and clarity of vision. You like his agenda, period. If it was Nader, whose vision is just as clear, you wouldn't be shouting about how great his clarity of vision and agenda are when he'd doing everything that you're personally opposed to.

You want clarity? You want a leader with an unwavering determination to move forward with his agenda no matter what people think? He's hiding in a cave in Afghanistan right now. Go bow down to Osama Bin Laden.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Hey, you know who has a clear agenda and sticks to it? Ralph Nader! There's a candidate for you. Please. Don't try to act like you're awed by Bush integrity and clarity of vision. You like his agenda, period. If it was Nader, whose vision is just as clear, you wouldn't be shouting about how great his clarity of vision and agenda are when he'd doing everything that you're personally opposed to.

I agree, and you get two bonus points for not using Kerry in ANY of your examples of people with clarity.

. . =(_8^(1)

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Hey, you know who has a clear agenda and sticks to it? Ralph Nader! There's a candidate for you.

Yes, he's the outstanding candidate for liberals that want a guy with moral clarity.

Quite right, go Ralph!

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Trent 0]

Quote

So you respected Stalin, Mao, Ho, Idi Amin...

At least you know what you're dealing with when you're dealing with them. You're very good at trying to twist things like that when you very well knew what I meant. I suppose you have more respect for people that can't be taken for their word.

Oh, hello again!

[quade 4]

I have more respect for people who say and, more importantly, do things I respect.

I do respect GWB's efforts in Afganistan.
I do not respect his efforts in Iraq.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Trent 0]

Quote

I have more respect for people who say and, more importantly, do things I respect.

Ahhh, but how about those who say things you respect, but do things you don't? Or those that say things you don't respect, but do things you do?

I'd still rather be dealing with someone who makes clear their intentions, than someone who lies and cheats to get their way.

Oh, hello again!

[crwmike 0]

Quote

I have more respect for people who say and, more importantly, do things I respect.

I do respect GWB's efforts in Afganistan.
I do not respect his efforts in Iraq.

Roger that!

Michael