Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: mightymouse72 on February 17, 2007, 05:22:59 PM
-
Take some time and enjoy.
Quote:
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry — all Democrats
“We 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.”
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction.”
Quote:
Bill Clinton > February 17, 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.”
Quote:
Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
“It is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.”
Quote:
Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
Quote:
Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 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.”
Quote:
John Kerry > January 23, 2003
“Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.”
Quote:
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Quote:
Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
“He’ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983.”
Quote:
John Kerry > October 9, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Quote:
Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
“We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Quote:
Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Quote:
Senator Hillary Clinton > October 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, 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.”
Quote:
Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002
“There was 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 that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Quote:
Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there’s been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn’t mean he won’t. This is a bad guy.”
Quote:
Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of ‘98. 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.”
Quote:
Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face — and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.”
Quote:
Al Gore > September 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.”
Quote:
Jane Harman > August 27, 2002
“I certainly think (Hussein’s) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good.”
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain.”
Quote:
Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999
“One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons.”
Quote:
Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq…. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
Quote:
Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002
“[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam
has chemical and biological weapons,
and I expect that he is trying to develop
a nuclear weapon. So at some point,
we might have to act precipitously.”
Quote:
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program.”
Quote:
Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
“Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons.”
Quote:
Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002
“(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you’ll get a debate about whether it’s one year away or five years away.”
Quote:
Evan Bayh > August 4, 2002
“I’m inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case
needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others.”
Quote:
Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002
“With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues.”
Quote:
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century…. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”
Quote:
Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003
“Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It’s just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.”
Quote:
Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003
“I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States.”
Quote:
John Kerry > January 31, 2003
“If you don’t believe…Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn’t vote for me.”
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability.”
Quote:
Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002
“I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he’s trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us.”
Quote:
Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
“The question is whether we’re going to allow this man who’s been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where — if we’re going to stop him if he invades a country around him — it’ll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives.”
Quote:
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“First of all, we don’t know exactly what he has. It’s been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one.”
Quote:
Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
“The (Clinton) administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.”
Quote:
Senator Bob Graham > December 8, 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.”
Quote:
Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
“The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq.”
Quote:
John Kerry > February 23, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.”
Quote:
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Quote:
Al Gore > December 16, 1998
“f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons…”
-
Mightymouse don't you know they were all given bad intel by Bush? Including the ones who made those statements BEFORE Bush took office? Liars. All of them.
-
Mightymouse don't you know they were all given bad intel by Bush? Including the ones who made those statements BEFORE Bush took office? Liars. All of them.
all liars or this is the biggest conspriacy since......ever!
-
all liars or this is the biggest conspriacy since......ever!
I agree. Impeachment! I say we demand Congressional hearings.
-
I agree. Impeachment! I say we demand Congressional hearings.
beach, are you hearing crickets out on the island??
-
beach, are you hearing crickets out on the island??
*CRICKETS*
Actually, coqui frogs are much louder and much more of a nuisance here in the islands. :)
-
cute
-
cute
LOL! ;D
-
2003/2003:
CIA got info.
CIA gave info to DoD.
DoD ran it thru Feith's office.
Feith *sorted* it.
Feith gave it to White House.
White House gave it to Congress.
Congress made decisions and these statements.
Then, in 2007:
Internal independent Pentagon audit reveals Feith made up the info.
Congress realizes they were lied to by White House.
Congress votes on no-surge bill today, which gets 56-34 in favor of rebuking Bush.
So enjoy your quotes. They were made on forged info. Info was forged under Bush apopointee who fit Bush agenda. Anyone with a brain sees that now.
-
not going to debate your spin on the intell, that will just end up with name calling.
so, can you explain the info below before bush took office??
(i re-posted for your convenience)
Quote:
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry — all Democrats
“We 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.”
Bill Clinton > February 17, 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.”
Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 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.”
Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
“He’ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983.”
Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999
“One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons.”
Quote:
Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq…. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century…. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”
Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
“The (Clinton) administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.”
Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
“The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq.”
John Kerry > February 23, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.”
Al Gore > December 16, 1998
“f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons…”
-
not going to debate your spin on the intell, that will just end up with name calling.
so, can you explain the info below before bush took office??
(i re-posted for your convenience)
Quote:
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry — all Democrats
“We 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.”
Bill Clinton > February 17, 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.”
Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 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.”
Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
“He’ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983.”
Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999
“One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons.”
Quote:
Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq…. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century…. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”
Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
“The (Clinton) administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.”
Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
“The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq.”
John Kerry > February 23, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.”
Al Gore > December 16, 1998
“f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons…”
I'd post the picture if I knew how. :)
**coqui frogs**
-
**coqui frogs**
You are one fruity guy.
-
not going to debate your spin on the intell, that will just end up with name calling.
so, can you explain the info below before bush took office??
(i re-posted for your convenience)
suprise, surprise no serious replies!! ;D
-
** coqui frogs **
-
suprise, surprise no serious replies!! ;D
there is something we should remember especially when it comes to politicians:
Nearly everything they say is motivated by politics.
So for dems to be in support of the war when America is in a fear based hysteria from 9/11 in my mind isn;t at all significant. Not voting the invasion is probable political suicide.
If the Dems were in power and had decided to invade Iraq i would be just as passionate in my objection to it as i was for invading Afghanistan and i would be saying loud and clear: "GORE F*** UP!" Or who ever, yikes it makes me sick thinking of Gore as a president of the USA....ouch!
My opposition against this war has nothing to do with party politics.
-
there is something we should remember especially when it comes to politicians:
Nearly everything they say is motivated by politics.
So for dems to be in support of the war when America is in a fear based hysteria from 9/11 in my mind isn;t at all significant. Not voting the invasion is probable political suicide.
If the Dems were in power and had decided to invade Iraq i would be just as passionate in my objection to it as i was for invading Afghanistan and i would be saying loud and clear: "GORE F*** UP!" Or who ever, yikes it makes me sick thinking of Gore as a president of the USA....ouch!
My opposition against this war has nothing to do with party politics.
How anyone can't see that both the dems and repubs are the same side of the coin is sad.
When will people take off their blinders?
Sandra
-
there is something we should remember especially when it comes to politicians:
Nearly everything they say is motivated by politics.
So for dems to be in support of the war when America is in a fear based hysteria from 9/11 in my mind isn;t at all significant. Not voting the invasion is probable political suicide.
If the Dems were in power and had decided to invade Iraq i would be just as passionate in my objection to it as i was for invading Afghanistan and i would be saying loud and clear: "GORE F*** UP!" Or who ever, yikes it makes me sick thinking of Gore as a president of the USA....ouch!
My opposition against this war has nothing to do with party politics.
ONE of the points i wanted to make with this thread was how everyone (democrats) was screaming about saddam and his weapons and how he needed to be stopped. bush stopped him, now it's a mess over there and those same democrats have now reversed issue. doesn't make sense. stick to your guns. why must they continue to flip-flop on issues?? like i stated before, quit b**ching about the president and fix the situation.
i heard a quote the other day from H. Clinton that she made a day after saddam was captured and she stated she was glad she voted for the war and it's good the US was over there. (can't remember word for word) ::)
-
ONE of the points i wanted to make with this thread was how everyone (democrats) was screaming about saddam and his weapons and how he needed to be stopped. bush stopped him, now it's a mess over there and those same democrats have now reversed issue. doesn't make sense. stick to your guns. why must they continue to flip-flop on issues?? like i stated before, quit b**ching about the president and fix the situation.
i heard a quote the other day from H. Clinton that she made a day after saddam was captured and she stated she was glad she voted for the war and it's good the US was over there. (can't remember word for word) ::)
Well, I don't disagree that they (most dems) are completely spineless.... however, let's be honest... If the situation were reversed, with a Republican Congress, a Democratic President, and stuff still going to hell, just like it is... You wouldn't have Republicans turning their backs and saying the same statements?
These guys were doing what EVERYONE said was the right thing... 2 years ago. Fast forward that to today and most people say it was NOT the right thing to do.
Sure, a lot of republicans are all about staying the course... but let me ask you this... If I'm staying the course, and there's a bridge on the course I must cross, but this bridge is destroyed (for whatever reason), do I stay the course or look for another direction, including going backwards if I must?
Everyone was voting on information that we have now realized was incorrect... that's just the truth of the matter.
I for one NEVER said we should go to Iraq... I'm much more upset that we left Afghanistan (and in my opinion the job) unprotected and unfinished to go get a guy who was already contained, and was not an immediate threat to anyone...
My favorite Republican in the past 15 years (General Colin Powell) also said it was not the right thing to do, but I guess being the smartest most knowledgeable guy on foreign policy isn't enough.
That's what I'm so upset about... Why are we not listening to the smart people around here?
-
ONE of the points i wanted to make with this thread was how everyone (democrats) was screaming about saddam and his weapons and how he needed to be stopped. bush stopped him, now it's a mess over there and those same democrats have now reversed issue. doesn't make sense. stick to your guns. why must they continue to flip-flop on issues?? like i stated before, quit b**ching about the president and fix the situation.
i heard a quote the other day from H. Clinton that she made a day after saddam was captured and she stated she was glad she voted for the war and it's good the US was over there. (can't remember word for word) ::)
True. It is just absurd that people claim Bush fed bad intel to Democrats who then made public statements about Saddam being a threat, when Democrats were calling Saddam a threat BEFORE Bush took office.
-
True. It is just absurd that people claim Bush fed bad intel to Democrats who then made public statements about Saddam being a threat, when Democrats were calling Saddam a threat BEFORE Bush took office.
So the Bush intel was good, then? ;)
-
So the Bush intel was good, then? ;)
Quote from: mightymouse72 on February 18, 2007, 07:15:47 AM
not going to debate your spin on the intell, that will just end up with name calling.
so, can you explain the info below before bush took office??
(i re-posted for your convenience)
-
Was the Bush intel good, beach bum?
Should be a pretty easy task. Why won't you defend your own President?
-
Why won't you defend your own President?
not going to debate your spin on the intell, that will just end up with name calling.
so, can you explain the info below before bush took office??
-
my spin? No spin. They didn't vote for war based upon the 1998 intel, 1998 beliefs, or 1998 statements.
They voted for war based upon the immediate threat of WMD as delivered to them in reports from Dubya.
No one wanted to vote to start a war with them in 98. THe only thing that changed from 98 to 02 was additional info - FROM THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE.
-
Quote from: mightymouse72 on February 18, 2007, 07:15:47 AM
not going to debate your spin on the intell, that will just end up with name calling.
so, can you explain the info below before bush took office??
I doubt you will get an answer. Well, I doubt you get an answer that doesn't involve some sort of nefarious conspiracy. I haven't heard a logical explanation for the unbroken chain of "intel" that showed Saddam was a threat from the early 1990s through the start of the current Iraq war. I think it is inconceivable that so many Democrats (and Republicans) publicly stated Saddam was a threat, before Bush took office, if there wasn't fire somewhere.
-
I think it is inconceivable that so many Democrats (and Republicans) publicly stated Saddam was a threat, before Bush took office, if there wasn't fire somewhere.
If there was a real fire, when Cheney/Rice went on TV to sell the war, they wouldn't have had to tell us bullshit lies.
Hope this "heps".
-
Take some time and enjoy.
Mighty, can you post a link to this? Where did you find it?
-
ONE of the points i wanted to make with this thread was how everyone (democrats) was screaming about saddam and his weapons and how he needed to be stopped. bush stopped him, now it's a mess over there and those same democrats have now reversed issue. doesn't make sense. stick to your guns. why must they continue to flip-flop on issues?? like i stated before, quit b**ching about the president and fix the situation.
i heard a quote the other day from H. Clinton that she made a day after saddam was captured and she stated she was glad she voted for the war and it's good the US was over there. (can't remember word for word) ::)
The guy in the Titantic did the same thing. At some point you have to speak up and say (whether t's for political reasons or not) that it's a mess and we made mistake. The democrats, seem to feel pulling out is the answer. I'm not so sure. but i haven't heard the republicans come up with a good plan either.
20k troops? 93 more billion? oh please.
And the Rep leadership isn;t listening to the ISG.
These are the sources of my "bitching"
We might need to face the fact that we may have got ourselves caught in quick sand.
-
True. It is just absurd that people claim Bush fed bad intel to Democrats who then made public statements about Saddam being a threat, when Democrats were calling Saddam a threat BEFORE Bush took office.
He didn;t feed the democrats bad intel, He fed everyone bad intel.
the problem with Intel is that there is so much of it. I'm willing to bet he had several different intelligence assessments that were all different. He chose the one that supported his objectives.
That might explain some of Rice's and Powell's statements of Saddam's lack of being a threat prior to the Iraq PR campaign.
This is the problem i've tried to explain to 240. Even if he did Lie, there's noway it will ever be proved, so in some ways it's a moot issue.
-
the fudged intel came from the repub appointed doug feith in the pentagon.
pentagon audit admits it.
so there should be no question.
Feith admits he picked out what he believed was impostant, then wrote a memo called "linking iraq to al Q" which was given to white house then congress for decision making.
I don't know why anyone still says "Bush didn't lie". He appointed a man to cherry pick data to make his case for war. Plain and simple.
-
He didn;t feed the democrats bad intel, He fed everyone bad intel.
the problem with Intel is that there is so much of it. I'm willing to bet he had several different intelligence assessments that were all different. He chose the one that supported his objectives.
That might explain some of Rice's and Powell's statements of Saddam's lack of being a threat prior to the Iraq PR campaign.
This is the problem i've tried to explain to 240. Even if he did Lie, there's noway it will ever be proved, so in some ways it's a moot issue.
If he wasn't a threat and Bush supposedly "lied" about Saddam being a threat, then what is the basis for the numerous Democrats calling Saddam a threat in 1998, 1999, 2000 . . . before Bush took office?
-
If he wasn't a threat and Bush supposedly "lied" about Saddam being a threat, then what is the basis for the numerous Democrats calling Saddam a threat in 1998, 1999, 2000 . . . before Bush took office?
I don't doubt Saddam was a threat, but at what level?
Every day leaders have to determine where the great threats are... Al Quaeda is STILL a big threat to this country, but so far, nothing has really been done about it except oust the head of a country who was already in check and was a very minor threat.
Iran is a much bigger threat and ALWAYS has been because we had not kept them in check for so long.
Venezuela is a big economic threat and we need work through that solution. Korea is a threat to Japan and in turn is a threat to us.
Do you think Saddam was a bigger threat than any of these guys? I truly do not... I do think he was in a position to be dealt with according to our current Administrations policy... he had a weak military and he had oil... That's all we needed.
-
I don't doubt Saddam was a threat, but at what level?
Every day leaders have to determine where the great threats are... Al Quaeda is STILL a big threat to this country, but so far, nothing has really been done about it except oust the head of a country who was already in check and was a very minor threat.
Iran is a much bigger threat and ALWAYS has been because we had not kept them in check for so long.
Venezuela is a big economic threat and we need work through that solution. Korea is a threat to Japan and in turn is a threat to us.
Do you think Saddam was a bigger threat than any of these guys? I truly do not... I do think he was in a position to be dealt with according to our current Administrations policy... he had a weak military and he had oil... That's all we needed.
I was referring to the numerous public statements by Democrats that Saddam had WMDs made before Bush took office. They believed he had them, they told the American people he had them, and that belief and those representations had nothing to do with Bush.
And yes I believe Saddam was a bigger threat than Chavez or North Korea at the time we invaded in 2002. He was a unique dictator. I've gone over my rationale many times on this board and don't really feel like doing it again (unless you really want to hear it). :)
-
I was referring to the numerous public statements by Democrats that Saddam had WMDs made before Bush took office. They believed he had them, they told the American people he had them, and that belief and those representations had nothing to do with Bush.
And yes I believe Saddam was a bigger threat than Chavez or North Korea at the time we invaded in 2002. He was a unique dictator. I've gone over my rationale many times on this board and don't really feel like doing it again (unless you really want to hear it). :)
Nah, I'll be ok... we probably won't agree anyway... I never really thought he was that much of a threat, sorry... Our no fly zones and other missions we've been conducting since the end of the Gulf War kind of make me think he wasn't that big a deal.
It's ok we don't agree though...
Of course we thought he had WMDs... we always thought that... we did stockpile him in the early 80s with a lot of biological weapons, so why wouldn't we?
That doesn't make him more dangerous that others though... I personally like to look at the completely crazy ones first, he's ruthless and mean, but he was never crazy.
-
Nah, I'll be ok... we probably won't agree anyway... I never really thought he was that much of a threat, sorry... Our no fly zones and other missions we've been conducting since the end of the Gulf War kind of make me think he wasn't that big a deal.
It's ok we don't agree though...
Of course we thought he had WMDs... we always thought that... we did stockpile him in the early 80s with a lot of biological weapons, so why wouldn't we?
That doesn't make him more dangerous that others though... I personally like to look at the completely crazy ones first, he's ruthless and mean, but he was never crazy.
You're right we probably won't agree. And it's good we can do that without insulting each other. :)
-
You're right we probably won't agree. And it's good we can do that without insulting each other. :)
Yeah... "Poophead"
:)
-
Yeah... "Poophead"
:)
lol. I've been called much worse . . . . ;D
-
lol. I've been called much worse . . . . ;D
Haven't we all
:)