Just for Democrats/Liberals

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by jimnyc, Apr 5, 2004.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Please don't dodge this question as you all have done time and time again.

    So many of you claim Bush lied about WMD. The evidence was fabricated you claim. He planned on invading Iraq from day one in office. That there haven't been WMD in Iraq in at least 10 years. That he mislead the country about Iraq and their weapons. That Bush only took us into war for the oil.

    Please tell me how you absolve the below mentioned people. Most of these statements were made before Bush took office, and plenty before the decision was made to invade Iraq.

    You all blame Bush relentlessly. Why do you fail to mention the rest of the government that made the very same arguments?

    --------

    "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 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 reinvigorated 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, Dec, 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 mandate 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 seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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 alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (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. "[W]ithout 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 has 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.
     
  2. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    Here is my thinking on what was said in 98: Clinton bombed Iraq and successfully destroyed Saddam's weapon programs and thusly the dems weren't lying, or Clinton wanted to distract from the Lewinski thing and the dems lined up, which is why I said it was pure partisanship.

    The 2002 stuff goes along with the idea that Bush handled Sept 11th and Afghanistan really well so that the American public was behind him with the highest approval rating ever, so the dems, being politicians, jumped on board.

    Oh, and I don't think bush lied about WMD, he mislead the public with interpreted intelligence.
     
  3. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    As you can see, MANY of those quotes were long after 1998. I believe they were stated because they believed what they were saying.

    Now, the resolutions CLEARLY state that Iraq MUST PROVE that they destroyed all their banned weapons.

    So, there was never any proof submitted (not nearly enough anyway). So the Dems thought it was ok to take action just a short time ago are now opposed to the action that was taken (even though they strongly recommended it).

    I'm confused as to what changed their minds? I'm also at a loss to understand why those that want to hang Bush from the closest tree aren't jumping up and down at these people and calling for their heads? Are they all not an integral part of our government? Are their words just not important, that they can be discarded and dismissed so easily?

    You can't possibly believe their entire weapons program was destroyed in the bombing runs of 98, can you? Why was proof not demanded then of their destruction?

    In short, it's been quite a rarity to see a democrat/liberal hold all the above responsible collectively. Those that blame solely GWB are obviously deluded or just plain blinded by politics.
     
  4. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    I saw you added this after the fact.

    And yet those statements he made sound eerily similar to what all the democrats had to say. Did they all mislead us as well? And if so, why are you only mentioning Bush?

    Or do you think we should just discard their statements and chalk it up to a lewinsky thing or partisanship thing?
     
  5. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    I definitely hold others accountable, but it was a republican controlled country with a republican president, so not a lot of blame can be put on the dems. Bush is the president and the most powerful man in the world, so most of the blame(or admiration) should be put on him.

    We can never know if Clinton and the rest mislead us back in 98, b/c of everything that has happened since then that could have destroyed Saddam's weapons, bombings, inspectors, and so on.

    I stated earlier in the post why the dems were on board this time around.
     
  6. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Reasonable answer. I think it's at least worth mentioning though. Months on end of blame going to Bush with not a word spoken about those that held the intelligence in the same regard seems a bit odd.

    BTW - Bush may be the most powerful man in the world, but he can't make these decisions without the assistance of congress. And yes, I know things are republican ruled - but let's not act like the vote was close and maybe decided by the majority republican voter. The voting was overwhelmingly in favor. The statements about Saddam were very consistent throughout the past 7-8 years. The country has had the same stance and has been going in this direction for quite a few years, democrat and republican ruled. The only time this country has stood divided on this issue is when election year rolled around.
     

Share This Page