Who was the first ones to be in favor of spanking Hussein?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2003 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Re-evaluating Weapons of Mass Destruction



"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, Clinton Secretary of State, 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 con! sulting 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, chemic! al 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 weap! ons." - 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, developing a 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 THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM..............
WMD




posted on Nov, 18 2003 @ 07:36 PM
link   
You know, this isn't MUD PIT info, this is political scandal material, as it is real, true, and truly scandalous!



posted on Nov, 18 2003 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Thank you for the clairification its Clinton we should be
angry with he sat on his thumbs while the world went down the toilet

Excellent post

Just Pure Facts



posted on Nov, 18 2003 @ 08:01 PM
link   
A conspicuous silence falls over the best post ive read all day.
What happened ? Are all the Peddlers of partyline Propaganda dumbfounded when confronted with Facts.



posted on Nov, 18 2003 @ 08:11 PM
link   
What? Did you think they'd line up to admit defeat? Seriously, you know them better than that!


They are running from the light, screaming like little girls!



posted on Nov, 18 2003 @ 08:22 PM
link   

I cant stop laughing...............



posted on Nov, 19 2003 @ 03:48 AM
link   
You mean to tell me that Bush Sr. never even mentioned Iraq? You don't have a single quote from him.
That's pretty tough to believe, since he was president (before Clinton) when we went to war with them the first time. Nope, this one isn't biased at all.



posted on Nov, 19 2003 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr

1) You mean to tell me that Bush Sr. never even mentioned Iraq? You don't have a single quote from him.


2) That's pretty tough to believe, since he was president (before Clinton) when we went to war with them the first time.

3) Nope, this one isn't biased at all.


1 & 2 ) You wrote the answer in your point 2.


3) No it's not biased.

Clinton ( followed by his admin ) has allways been the first one to strike Irak. TC just want to tell us that even if Gore was the actual US President, the US Army would be in Irak anyway.


Some peoples like ( love ? ) to think and say that if a Democrat President was running the USA , and not a Republican, that war with Irak would never happened.

It's, of course, A POLITICAL LIE brought by the Democrat !!!



posted on Nov, 19 2003 @ 04:42 AM
link   
What the hell are you talking about? Clinton wasn't even in office when we went to the first Gulf war to defend Kuwait. Is that too long ago to remember for you?

Let me elaborate on this, in case you still don't get it.


Bush Sr. - 1989 - 1993

Operation Desert Shield begins, Aug. 7, 1990

Operation Desert Storm and air war phase begins, Jan. 17, 1991

Clinton - 1993 - 2001


[Edited on 11-19-2003 by Satyr]



posted on Nov, 19 2003 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
What the hell are you talking about? Clinton wasn't even in office when we went to the first Gulf war to defend Kuwait. Is that too long ago to remember for you?


Look, I wasn't speaking about GWb Sr but Clinton. We know all that GWB Sr went in Irak first. I said that Clinton was allways ready to hit & strike Irak and Saddam.



posted on Nov, 19 2003 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Bush 41 went to war with Iraq to drive them out of Kuwait at the request of the UN! He did exactly what the UN directive demanded and look what it got us. 12 years of dealing with this guy who's constant scheming has now allowed him to be touted as a misunderstood leader who was only out for the best for his people. EVRYBODY including the democrats sitting in the house and senate right now know that he had weapons. They know that those weapons are out there somewhere. They know what they're meant for and they're scared #less that all the political postering will come with a cost too huge to pay. They, like their adversaries in the GOP are nevertheless trapped in this political game of self-interests while the terror groups inch ever closer to putting those weapons into use. From the quotes Mr. Crowne has posted, I think we should shift focus from the argument of whether or not there were weapons to where the hell are they and what do we do to get them destroyed?

[Edited on 19-11-2003 by astrocreep]



posted on Nov, 19 2003 @ 07:08 AM
link   
I never said Clinton was innocent, or the commie crats entirely.

Clinton failed, during 8 years of leadership, to properly draw the military down by removing us from Europe, Koprea, the middle east, ect, but instead, stretched us even thinner and deployed us on stupid missions and pointless exercises like Bosnia, Haiti. He sat back while the Saudis attacked our troops not once, but TWICE. (USS Cole and Khobar).

Clinton should have pulled us out of the middle east period to undo the damage and problems of the first gulf war. But he didnt. He said hed jump in a foxhole and fight for israel, when he chieckened out in nam and wouldnt even fight along side his own countrymen.

I was never a clinton fan, never will be. I hate him greatly.

However, lets get back to the point.

Bush is simply a danger to everyone, especially to his own country. Clinton did not send us into Iraq, Clinton is not doing the loony things Bush is doing.

Clinton damaged us for 8 years, but if Bush continues, we wont have 8 years left, let alone 3 years.



posted on Nov, 19 2003 @ 07:26 AM
link   

- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001


Just an addendum here....that he said this as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee....so he would be qualified to make such an assessment....


Bush Sr. knew the need to remove Saddam, but eventually had to bow to international opinion to leave him in power...

Clinton never had the balls to address the problem (or the Osama problem for that matter)...so he simply bided his time...

Bush Jr. (through assurances by his father no doubt) also realized the threat of Saddam (which goes far further than public opinion btw...), but unfortunately is not a very capable leader or commander in chief. And though he could have gotten the world on his side had he taken the time...he deemed the threat more immediate than it was, and then went about it like a bull in a china shop....



posted on Nov, 19 2003 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Unsubstantiated Political Hay (R) + Unsubstantiated Politcal Hay(D) + Unsubstantiated Political Hay (R) = WMD Fact!?!?!

It doesn't add up.

Now do your homework on this and tell me why these quotes in Feb. of 1998 are the only germaine ones to Thomas's volley?
"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, Clinton Secretary of State, 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


Either way, who has brought us to the point where we entered into a war without exhausting diplomatic avenues? A war that has tens of thousands NON-COMBATANT Iraqis DEAD?
The cost of life for our"coalition" military is critical, but at the end of the day, do you think we'll walk away on the plus side of the cost/benefit ratio in any category, much less with tens of thousands NON-COMBATANT Iraqis DEAD?



posted on Nov, 19 2003 @ 10:01 AM
link   
That's a good question BT! You obviously are implying the president, but, don't forgot that he was authorized by congress to do this. Hmm, let's see, let's answer the 'who' question for Bout Time, shall we?

* Out of those seeking the presidential office Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards voted to use force.

* Your gal, Hillary, vote yes also.

* And, so did Daschle and Gephardt.

I'm surpised Kerry and Gephardt even showed up to vote, since they hardly bother doing that.



posted on Nov, 19 2003 @ 10:19 AM
link   
You got it!!

Though the dramatic diff: force vesus warfare/occupation is what folks should take away from the point.



posted on Nov, 19 2003 @ 11:51 AM
link   
and a good point that is, really.

But, are you suggesting we cut and run, NOW? omg!



posted on Nov, 19 2003 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Ask for help & give concessions to the carcass that is being horded by Haliburton/Bechtel/ Global Crossing et al, then you'd not only get the armies of other nations, but your net profit would be higher.
But that's thinking America first, crony second. Bush has zero track record of being capable of that positioning.



posted on Nov, 19 2003 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I suggest just telling the actual truth, and investigate the real facts, instead of just making them up and covering asses. Just about everything that can be considered a reason to attack Iraq can be explained in a different light. We only get the stripped down versions that support Dubya's mission. For instance....

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 19 2003 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Armies of other nations? BT, your talking points are outdated :p

I dont like what's going on either but keep in mind the multi-national force there:

We have the British, Italians, Poles, Spanish, Albanians, Romanians, Azerbaijanis, Bulgarians, Czechs, Danes, Georgians, Estonians, Hungarians, Kazakhstanians, Latvians, Lithuania, Macedonians, Moldovans, Dutch, Thais, South Koreans, Kiwis. Plus the Aussies were there, thankfully, when it was go time. Even El Salvadore sent some troops.

Just because France and Germany hasn't sent troops doesn't mean its unilateral.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join