For My Democratic Friends

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Greetings!!!

In honor of the GRAND TEMPER TANTRUM OF NOVEMBER 1ST, 2005: (Democrats shutting down the Sentate)

I thought I’d update some of my favorite quotes.

John Kerry, January 23rd, 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.”

“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.” – Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.” – Madeleine Albright, February 1st, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton national security advisor, February 18th, 1998

“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.” That from a letter to President Clinton signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, October 9th, 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.” – Nancy Pelosi, December 16th, 1998

“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” – Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s secretary of state, November 10th, 1999

“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.” – Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), September 19th, 2002

“We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, September 23rd, 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, September 23rd, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Ted Kennedy, September 27th, 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.” – Robert Byrd (D-WV) October 3rd, 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.” – Senator Bob Graham, Democrat, Florida, December 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.” – Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 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.” – Senator Jay Rockefeller, October 10th, 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.” – Senator John Kerry, October 9th, 2002

I want everyone to pay particular attention to the dates.

The most telling are the dates BEFORE W. came to office.

For my little liberal friends who say “At least we never went to war,” I’m forced to ask you to read these quotes again.

These quotes leave no doubt about the convictions of the democrats.

If you oppose the war, voted for any of these people, you are going to have to either admit that these officials were “lying/(like W.)” or they didn’t have the courage/conviction to remove an obvious threat.

I’m interested in your choice.

JeffR

2

yawn

3

It’s all a lie, Jerffy doesn’t have any democrat friends!

4

This is really the core of the matter.

The Democrats thought Saddam had WMD’s too. They voted for war just like the Republicans.

Bush did not build a time machine back to the late 90’s and doctor the intelligence.

If the Democrats want to be relevant they need to bring real ideas to the table. This destructive political game they are playing will not help them or the country. It may raise some money from the lunatic fringe.

Can anyone explain to me that if the Democrats want to shed light on the truthfulness of the prewar info, why do they need a closed session to discuss this?

If they had any dirt they would be shouting it from the rooftops, not hiding it behind closed doors.

5

Harry Reid has to be one of the biggest idiots in the history of the United States Senate.

I cannot understand how people - especially the supposed T-men on this site - can actually stand behind him with the estrogen so visibly dripping from his forehead.

6

What everybody is forgetting is that there were newspaper articles saying that the CIA beleived that WMD were not in Iraq , before we actually went in. Whether true or not , these accusations and the gravity of the war warrant it being looked at closer.

GWB obviously is pooh-poohing the whole matter hesaying had bad intel. BS!

For the republicans reading this: GWB is screwing our country over. He could be doing something about Iran’s real nukes right now if he didnt go and mess up a country w/ none at all. Or he could have a well-balanced budget w/out cannabalizing student loan programs and everything else being cut.

7

March 17, 2003
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I am writing regarding a matter of grave concern. Upon your order, our armed forces will soon initiate the first preemptive war in our nation?s history. The most persuasive justification for this war is that we must act to prevent Iraq from developing nuclear weapons.

In the last ten days, however, it has become incontrovertibly clear that a key piece of evidence you and other Administration officials have cited regarding Iraq?s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is a hoax. What?s more, the Central Intelligence Agency questioned the veracity of the evidence at the same time you and other Administration officials were citing it in public statements. This is a breach of the highest order, and the American people are entitled to know how it happened.

As you know, I voted for the congressional resolution condemning Iraq and authorizing the use of force. Despite serious misgivings, I supported the resolution because I believed congressional approval would significantly improve the likelihood of effective U.N. action. Equally important, I believed that you had access to reliable intelligence information that merited deference.

Like many other members, I was particularly influenced by your views about Iraq?s nuclear intentions. Although chemical and biological weapons can inflict casualties, no argument for attacking Iraq is as compelling as the possibility of Saddam Hussein brandishing nuclear bombs. That, obviously, is why the evidence in this area is so crucial, and why so many have looked to you for honest and credible information on Iraq’s nuclear capability.

It has now been conceded that this evidence was a forgery. On March 7, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, reported that the evidence that Iraq sought nuclear materials from Niger was ?not authentic.? As subsequent media accounts indicated, the evidence contained ?crude errors,? such as a ?childlike signature? and the use of stationary from a military government in Niger that has been out of power for over a decade.

–

These facts raise troubling questions. It appears that at the same time that you, Secretary Rumsfeld, and State Department officials were citing Iraq?s efforts to obtain uranium from Africa as a crucial part of the case against Iraq, U.S. intelligence officials regarded this very same evidence as unreliable. If true, this is deeply disturbing: it would mean that your Administration asked the U.N. Security Council, the Congress, and the American people to rely on information that your own experts knew was not credible.

–

The first Administration response, which was provided to the Washington Post, was ?we fell for it.? But this is no longer credible in light of the information from the CIA.

–

Given the urgency of the situation, I would appreciate an expeditious response to these questions.

Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member
http://www.house.gov/waxman/text/admin_iraq_march_17_let.htm

8

Good Morning!!!

So far none of my democratic friends have addressed the core issue of the post. Read the last few paragraphs for my pals who can’t stomach their party agreeing with W.

To the poster who said “there were newspaper articles that doubted the intelligence” please read more newspapers. Then tell me that there aren’t PLENTY of various opinions expressed daily. Many have no basis in fact.

justthefacts,

You do know the nature of waxman? If W. proposed to nominate waxman for the scotus, he would lobby his friends to vote against himself.

Anyway, I wanted to post the White House’s response to waxman.

THE REP. HENRY WAXMAN LETTER:
The Bush Administration Reply

United States Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520

April 29, 2003

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman,
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives.

Dear Mr. Waxman:

This is in response to your March 17 letter to the President outlining your concerns about the reliability of evidence purporting that Iraq attempted to procure uranium from Africa. The White House has asked the Department of State to respond on behalf of the President.

Beginning in late 2001, the United States obtained information through several channels, including U.S. intelligence sources and overt sources, reporting that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from Africa. In addition, two Western European allies informed us of similar reporting from their own intelligence services. As you know, the U.K. made this information public in its September 2002 dossier on “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction.” The other Western European ally relayed the information to us privately and said, while it did not believe any uranium had been shipped to Iraq, it believed Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger. We sought several times to determine the basis for the latter assessment, and whether it was based on independent evidence not otherwise available to the U.S. Not until March 4 did we learn that in fact the second Western European government had based its assessment on the evidence already available to the U.S. that was subsequently discredited.

Based on what appeared at the time to be multiple sources for the information in question, we acted in good faith in providing the information earlier this year to the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors responsible for verifying Iraq’s claims regarding its nuclear program. In similar good faith, the December 19 State Department fact sheet that illustrated omissions from the December 7 Iraqi declaration to the UN Security Council included a summary reference to the reported uranium procurement attempt. The December 19 fact sheet was a product developed jointly by the CIA and the State Department.

We hope this information is helpful. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Paul V. Kelly
Assistant Secretary
Legislative Affairs

Sure seems like a straightforward and likely scenario.

JeffR

9

jerffy, you can spin and spin all you want, but the truth is going to come out eventually. It almost always does. Senate Republicans are stalling on the investigation, hoping to hide the worst news until after the mid-terms next fall. Good luck.

Sooner or later those pom-poms you’re waving will stop blocking the eyes of even the most die-hard cheerleaders, and you’ll be forced to admit that this adminstration lied to Congress, the American public, and the rest of the world. Posting quotes of congressional Democrats who fell for the lies as proof doesn’t really buy you much.

10

What kind of ass clown doesn’t recognize that the facts given to the senate were the ones selected by the administration in their cherry picking process?

The vote that occurred at that time does not mean that everyone saw the same evidence (as the White House had access to more), had the same hand in shaping it (cherry picking), or that they weren’t pressured by the administrations shaping of media coverage (unpatriotic to question anything at that time).

Open up those little things on your face that help you see. They are called eyes. If you use them, sometimes you can take a look around and figure out some of what is going on in the world.

Psst, Jerffy, did you get a new skirt, you are looking awfully pretty these days as the chief cheerleader.

11

mark57 wrote:
“jerffy, you can spin and spin all you want, but the truth is going to come out eventually. It almost always does. Senate Republicans are stalling on the investigation, hoping to hide the worst news until after the mid-terms next fall. Good luck.”

That is completely false!!! But thanks for the talking point. I have been watching the Phase II discussions. Try listening to the Senator from Kansas.

“Sooner or later those pom-poms you’re waving will stop blocking the eyes of even the most die-hard cheerleaders, and you’ll be forced to admit that this adminstration lied to Congress, the American public, and the rest of the world. Posting quotes of congressional Democrats who fell for the lies as proof doesn’t really buy you much.”

“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.” – Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.” – Madeleine Albright, February 1st, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton national security advisor, February 18th, 1998

“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.” That from a letter to President Clinton signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, October 9th, 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.” – Nancy Pelosi, December 16th, 1998

“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” – Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s secretary of state, November 10th, 1999

mark, check the dates please.

I was at W’s inauguration. Please tell me again when he took office?

Thanks for playing!!!

JeffR

12

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Greetings!!!

In honor of the GRAND TEMPER TANTRUM OF NOVEMBER 1ST, 2005: (Democrats shutting down the Sentate)

I thought I’d update some of my favorite quotes.

John Kerry, January 23rd, 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.”

“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.” – Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.” – Madeleine Albright, February 1st, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton national security advisor, February 18th, 1998

“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.” That from a letter to President Clinton signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, October 9th, 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.” – Nancy Pelosi, December 16th, 1998

“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” – Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s secretary of state, November 10th, 1999

“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.” – Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), September 19th, 2002

“We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, September 23rd, 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, September 23rd, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Ted Kennedy, September 27th, 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.” – Robert Byrd (D-WV) October 3rd, 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.” – Senator Bob Graham, Democrat, Florida, December 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.” – Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 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.” – Senator Jay Rockefeller, October 10th, 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.” – Senator John Kerry, October 9th, 2002

I want everyone to pay particular attention to the dates.

The most telling are the dates BEFORE W. came to office.

For my little liberal friends who say “At least we never went to war,” I’m forced to ask you to read these quotes again.

These quotes leave no doubt about the convictions of the democrats.

If you oppose the war, voted for any of these people, you are going to have to either admit that these officials were “lying/(like W.)” or they didn’t have the courage/conviction to remove an obvious threat.

I’m interested in your choice.

JeffR[/quote]

This is all very interesting. I would like to make a few statements in regards to your post:

(1) If Clinton had a Congress that supported him instead of one that worried about him getting blowjobs in the oval office, he might have been able to act on these things rather than having to worry about keeping his job.

(2) Your pointing out the dates before GWB were in office relates to the situation that Clinton was in with the Congress (see #1). You are conveniently ignoring the quotes you posted that were made AFTER GWB was in office. Many of them were viewpoints of the politicians using the available intelligence info that may or may not have been accurate. This is not an excuse, just a statement.

(3) The plan to go to Iraq has been in place for a long time (pre-Clinton) as part of the neocon manifesto. As matter of fact, it was in place when the first Bush was in office and he was smart enough to reject it on the basis that it would be a protracted engagement that would result in a Vietnam-like quagmire.

I am not saying that the Democrats are any better than the Republicans with regard with going to war with Iraq, so don’t even go there. Politicians lie, that’s what they do. They go with the prevailing political winds. However, nothing you have posted changes the fact that the war in Iraq was a poorly planned affair and is not acheiving its goals on the war on terrorism (If that was even one of its goals to beging with. The goals change on a weekly basis depending on the excuse needed at the time).

Why is Osama Bin Ladin still at large? He and his group claimed the WTC and Pentagon attack. Why was that hunt ended and our attention was suddenly shifted to Iraq? Because the opportunity to enact the neocon manifesto was ripe and they used deceit and deception to take advantage of it.

Jeff, give it a rest with your partisan cheerleading. It has become tiresome and boring.

13

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Why is Osama Bin Ladin still at large? He and his group claimed the WTC and Pentagon attack. Why was that hunt ended and our attention was suddenly shifted to Iraq? Because the opportunity to enact the neocon manifesto was ripe and they used deceit and deception to take advantage of it.[/quote]

The hunt goes on for UBL. No one has stopped looking for him. The fact that he is in a very remote area where he has many sympathizers that are willing to give him harbor does not make the job easy.

This is not a video game that you can win in 30 minutes. It takes time. How much time? It’ll take until we find him, or indisputable proof theat he is dead.

Iraq has been on the front burener of our foreign policy since the first Gulf War. I would hardly call it ‘suddenly shifting’.

Exactly what is the “neocon manifesto”? You should try harder than that. You are sounding like Harris457 - or whatever the hell his name is.

[quote]
Jeff, give it a rest with your partisan cheerleading. It has become tiresome and boring. [/quote]

Why is it okay for you to spout off your brand of partisan BS and anti-war skirt flipping?

What is boring and tiresome is that the anti-war crowd has been singing the same song since 2003. Geez - at least learn a new verse, or a new melody.

14

aldurr wrote:

This is all very interesting. I would like to make a few statements in regards to your post:

“(1) If Clinton had a Congress that supported him instead of one that worried about him getting blowjobs in the oval office, he might have been able to act on these things rather than having to worry about keeping his job.”

Come on al. I’ve read some of your other posts. You are not dumb. This is just plain lazy.

You know (or should) know that the President legally needs to consult Congress only for a declaration of War. GHWB consulted Congress as a courtesy/good politics for Gulf War I.

He didn’t consult over Somalia or Panama.

If billy-boy was serious about invasion, he could have done it without consultation.

Oh, anyone care to argue that the Republicans (who voted overwhelmingly for Gulf War I) would have voted against finishing the job?

Oh, for the millionth time, can the “blowjob crap.” It’s about the Chief Executive of the United States obstructing a private citizen’s (Jones’) case against him (sexual harassment). Oh, perjury by said offender should have equalled jail time. (Oh, if Libby is guilty, he should also serve jail time)

“(2) Your pointing out the dates before GWB were in office relates to the situation that Clinton was in with the Congress (see #1).”

Don’t hide behind Congress. Clinton had all the power necessary to conduct said war if he had the cajones to do it.

“You are conveniently ignoring the quotes you posted that were made AFTER GWB was in office.”

If I was ignoring them, I wouldn’t have posted them.

I am an expert in refuting the democratic talking points.

I skipped a step. When I gave the quotes, I knew that the standard retort from my democratic friends would be to cry DOCTORED INTELLIGENCE.

I simply highlighted the Pre-W quotes that COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN DOCTORED BY THE EVIL REPUBLICANS!!!

“Many of them were viewpoints of the politicians using the available intelligence info that may or may not have been accurate. This is not an excuse, just a statement.”

Funny you don’t give W. any slack FOR DRAWING THE SAME CONCLUSIONS BASED UPON EXACTLY THE SAME INFORMATION.

“(3) The plan to go to Iraq has been in place for a long time (pre-Clinton) as part of the neocon manifesto.”

Point? I do like the “neocon manifesto” comment. Makes me feel so mao.

“As matter of fact, it was in place when the first Bush was in office and he was smart enough to reject it on the basis that it would be a protracted engagement that would result in a Vietnam-like quagmire.”

Given your party’s statements and voting record, I’d say they disagreed with that. Now, however, in desperation, they are trying to weasel and squirm.

“I am not saying that the Democrats are any better than the Republicans with regard with going to war with Iraq, so don’t even go there. Politicians lie, that’s what they do.”

democrats, however, vote for something and then against them. Then they call their opponents liars for voting for the same thing!!!

It’s absolutely disgusting.

“They go with the prevailing political winds.”

Thank God W. is standing strong in Iraq.

“However, nothing you have posted changes the fact that the war in Iraq was a poorly planned affair and is not acheiving its goals on the war on terrorism”

NOW THAT IS THE BASIS FOR A REASONABLE AND WELL MEASURED DISCUSSION.

NOT, “BUSH LIED, THE ARTIC SEA TURTLES DIED.” It sad to watch the democrats’ newest power grab.

“(If that was even one of its goals to beging with. The goals change on a weekly basis depending on the excuse needed at the time).”

Rubbish. Do a google search. There were many reasons. You distrust the Republicans so you automatically discount any valid argument made.

As has been pointed out 12 billion times, hussein’s non-adherence to the cease fire was plenty of reasons to invade.

Read your own party’s commentary.

“Why is Osama Bin Ladin still at large?”

bill clinton did not agree to the extradition.

Anyone care to argue?

“He and his group claimed the WTC and Pentagon attack. Why was that hunt ended and our attention was suddenly shifted to Iraq?”

I wasn’t aware it was ended. Please enlighten me.

“Because the opportunity to enact the neocon manifesto was ripe and they used deceit and deception to take advantage of it.”

Wrong. But it would look right at home in the newyork times.

“Jeff, give it a rest with your partisan cheerleading. It has become tiresome and boring.”

Thanks al. I hate to bore you with facts. I know it hurts your head.

I have to admit that it makes me pleased to watch your party implode.

If you cannot admit errors, you cannot change them.

Have fun in 06/08.

hillary for supreme ruler in 2008!!!

JeffR

15

The Senate relies on information from the president on which to inform there decisions. It’s the president that has access to the intelligence community. Not congress. If the information he furnishes them based is wrong, is that there fault. The Democrats are a disaster and inexcusably remis in being too wishy-washy and not articulating any real policies. But given the information provided by the president, post-911, in good conscinece they had to support the war.

If it was true, it would’ve been the right thing. But it’s not Congress’ job to determine the accuracy of information. It’s the president’s. Prior to 9-11, Democrats may have voiced there belief in the rightness of enacting force to combat the WMDs and terrorisms they believed of Saddam. But they didn’t actually act before determining whether they did, in fact, truly exist.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Greetings!!!

In honor of the GRAND TEMPER TANTRUM OF NOVEMBER 1ST, 2005: (Democrats shutting down the Sentate)

I thought I’d update some of my favorite quotes.

John Kerry, January 23rd, 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.”

“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.” – Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.” – Madeleine Albright, February 1st, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton national security advisor, February 18th, 1998

“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.” That from a letter to President Clinton signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, October 9th, 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.” – Nancy Pelosi, December 16th, 1998

“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” – Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s secretary of state, November 10th, 1999

“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.” – Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), September 19th, 2002

“We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, September 23rd, 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, September 23rd, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Ted Kennedy, September 27th, 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.” – Robert Byrd (D-WV) October 3rd, 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.” – Senator Bob Graham, Democrat, Florida, December 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.” – Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 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.” – Senator Jay Rockefeller, October 10th, 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.” – Senator John Kerry, October 9th, 2002

I want everyone to pay particular attention to the dates.

The most telling are the dates BEFORE W. came to office.

For my little liberal friends who say “At least we never went to war,” I’m forced to ask you to read these quotes again.

These quotes leave no doubt about the convictions of the democrats.

If you oppose the war, voted for any of these people, you are going to have to either admit that these officials were “lying/(like W.)” or they didn’t have the courage/conviction to remove an obvious threat.

I’m interested in your choice.

JeffR[/quote]

16

[quote]mark57 wrote:
jerffy, you can spin and spin all you want, but the truth is going to come out eventually. It almost always does. Senate Republicans are stalling on the investigation, hoping to hide the worst news until after the mid-terms next fall. Good luck.

…
[/quote]

You are falling for the Democrats bullshit. This closed session of the Senate has done nothing to speed up Phase 2 of the investigation.

It was timed specifically so it would look like the Dems were pressuring the Republicans, but the investigation is right on track.

17

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You are falling for the Democrats bullshit. This closed session of the Senate has done nothing to speed up Phase 2 of the investigation.

It was timed specifically so it would look like the Dems were pressuring the Republicans, but the investigation is right on track.[/quote]

From the remarks that the Senator from Kansas (Robertson, I believe) made, it seems that the Phase II crap has been ready since around the middle of May.

The Dems have been putting off finishing the report the whole time, and used the fact that they knew they would be workiing on the report next week to pull the whole Article 21 bullshit.

EVERYONE saw through the smoke screen - except the ABBers.

More of the same bullshit from the party without a message, or many votes for that matter.

18

[quote]ALDurr wrote:

(1) If Clinton had a Congress that supported him instead of one that worried about him getting blowjobs in the oval office, he might have been able to act on these things rather than having to worry about keeping his job.
[/quote]

Sorry Al, gotta toss the bulshit flag here. Clinton eliciting sexual favors from chubby interns was a small part of the problems for Clinton.

Clinton had charm, intelligence, and a charisma unmatched. Too bad he was so fucking crooked! The problem lies in the fact that he had so many scandels brewing that he was literally chasing his tail and put himself on defense for the majority of his presidency.

Leftist love to simplify the Clinton scandels down to a “blowjob in the oval office”. If that had been slick willie’s only problem there would have not been a problem. I suggest to all my Clinton loving friends to read a book called “Boy Clinton”. This book really illustrates the Clintons for who they are.

Also I think that Doogie’s post from the Revisiting The Aleged Leak thread deserves reposting.

People don’t pay attention to things like this. If the did, Clinton would have made sure no Democrat was ever elected again.

This list was compiled BEFORE Clinton was re-elected:

The A To Z Of Clinton Scandals

…It’s The Alphabet Of Ethics – Stupid!

Whitewatergate, travelgate, cattlegate and now
Indonesiagate…there seem to be more gates in the Clinton
White House than on the barns of America.

So just in case you’ve lost track of the scandals that have
hit this current White House the Post’s DEBORAH ORIN and
THOMAS GALVIN have pieced together your cut-out-and-keep
guide A to Z of Clinton scandals…

A is for Arkansas, where Bill Clinton got his political
start, where Hillary Rodham Clinton worked at the Rose Law
Firm, and where Whitewater began as a land deal between the
Clintons and Jim and Susan McDougal.

B is for Billing-gate, Hillary Clinton’s missing law-billing
records. Those records – which raise questions about Mrs.
Clinton’s role in the Castle Grande deal – were subpoenaed
in 1994. They were missing until early 1996, when they
turned up in a White House room next to her office. She says
she doesn’t know how they got there.

C is for Cattlegate, Hillary Clinton’s mysterious ability to
turn a $1,000 investment into a $100,000 profit on cattle
futures, a feat experts say was virtually impossible in
normal trading. C is also for Castle Grande, a real-estate
scheme that federal regulators say was a sham. A federal
inspector general’s report found Hillary Clinton drew up the
legal papers that were used to improperly funnel hundreds of
thousands of dollars to Seth Ward, father-in-law of her
ex-law partner Webster Hubbell.

D is for Billy Dale, the career head of the White House
Travel Office, who was fired, along with six other career
staffers, to make way for Clinton cronies in Travelgate. The
White House then brought in the FBI to justify the firing,
and Dale was hit with criminal charges that wrecked his life
for two years. A jury cleared him in just two hours.

E is for Mike Espy, the former agriculture secretary who was
forced out over charges that he got gifts and favors from
Arkansas-based Tyson foods, whose owners were longtime
Clinton backers. A special counsel has brought several
indictments, though not against Espy.

F is for Filegate, the improper White House rummaging
through 900 FBI files on Republican officials in the Bush
and Reagan administrations. The White House says it was an
innocent snafu. Republicans suspect an enemies list.
Whitewater independent counsel Ken Starr and several
congressional committees are probing.

G is for Golfgate, ex-White House aide David Watkins’
improper use of presidential helicopters for a personal golf
outing. He was forced to resign. In the 1992 presidential
campaign, Clinton aides tried to use taxpayer funds to help
settle a sexual harassment case filed by a fellow campaign
worker against Watkins.

H is for Hillary Clinton, whose role has been questioned in
Filegate, Travelgate, Billing-gate, Whitewater and Castle
Grande. She denies any wrongdoing. H is also for Hubbell, in
jail after pleading guilty to bilking law clients on charges
brought by Whitewater independent counsel Starr. Hubbell was
previously the associate attorney general, the No. 3 Justice
Department office.

I is for Indonesiagate, featuring the Lippo group, a firm
with long-standing ties to Bill Clinton, Clinton cronies and
Arkansas. Republicans want to know why an Indonesian couple
– of apparently modest means – with ties to Lippo gave
$452,000 to the Democratic National Committee and what the
firm may have gotten in return. Lippo also hired Hubbell, at
a reported fee of $250,000, for the five months between when
he left the White House and went to jail

J is for Paula Jones, who accuses President Clinton of
sexual harassment, saying he dropped his pants and asked for
oral sex in an Arkansas hotel room while he was governor and
she was a state employee. The U.S. Supreme Court will rule
this fall on whether her case must wait until after Clinton
leaves office, as he demands.

K is William Kennedy, another ex-Hillary Clinton law partner
who became a White House lawyer and was forced to resign
after concealing his failure to pay nanny taxes. He was
reprimanded for his role in Travelgate.

L is for Craig Livingstone, the ex-bar bouncer with a
history of drug use who was head of White House security.
Two FBI agents say it was Hillary Clinton who demanded his
hiring, which she denies. Disgraced Clinton political guru
Dick Morris’ hooker pal, Sherry Rowlands, claims Morris told
her a “paranoid” Hillary Clinton was behind Filegate. He
says he only told her that’s what polls show.

M is for Jim and Susan McDougal, the Clintons’ Whitewater
partners, both of whom have been convicted of fraud. Jim
McDougal is said to be helping Whitewater independent
counsel Starr. Susan McDougal is in jail for refusing to say
whether President Clinton lied when he denied knowing about
an illegal $300,000 loan to bail out Whitewater. The loan
wasn’t repaid, and taxpayers were left holding the bag. M
also is for disgraced Clinton political guru Dick Morris.

N is for Bernard Nussbaum, the former White House lawyer who
barred federal investigators from searching Vince Foster’s
office after Foster’s death. Nussbaum also withheld Foster’s
diary on Travelgate problems from federal probers for more
than a year. Nussbaum was forced to resign for botching
damage-control efforts.

O is for Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary, the frequent flier
who drew up an enemies’ list of reporters, hired an image
consultant at taxpayer expense, and has run up huge tabs on
overseas trips.

P is for pardons, which President Clinton has refused to
rule out for individuals like Susan McDougal who potentially
could provide evidence against him. P is also for White
House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, expected to leave in a
second Clinton term – with the prospect that his deputy,
Harold Ickes, could replace him. Senate Republicans want
perjury charges brought against Ickes for his answers on
Whitewater damage control.

Q is for all the questions – unanswered – on Whitewater,
Filegate, Travelgate, Cattlegate and Billing-gate.

R is for Sherry Rowlands, the $200-an hour hooker who
revealed her ongoing affair with Clinton political guru Dick
Morris, the author of Clinton’s family-values strategy,
forcing Morris to resign. R also is for Rose Law Firm, where
Hillary Clinton, Vince Foster, Webster Hubbell and William
Kennedy were partners, as was Joseph Giroir, a key figure in
the Lippo group.

S is for Kenneth Starr, the Whitewater independent counsel
probing Filegate, Travelgate and Vince Foster’s death. He
has won 15 convictions or guilty pleas, including both
McDougals and former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, who was
forced to resign. Starr says his probes are active and
ongoing, and there is widespread speculation he will have
more indictments after the election, possibly including one
of Hillary Clinton.

T is for Travelgate, the Clintons’ firing of career travel
staffers like Billy Dale to make way for Clinton cronies.
White House memos say Hillary Clinton was behind the firings
– she denies it – and that she was spurred on by Clinton
Hollywood pal Harry Thomason, who was seeking a piece of the
lucrative White House charter business.

U is for undue influence and the question of whether that is
what Lippo was seeking through megabucks contributions to
Democrats. Lippo has close ties to Indonesia’s brutal
dictatorship, responsible for near-genocide in East Timor,
which it occupied two decades ago.

V is for Vince Foster, the former Hillary Clinton law
partner who became a White House lawyer and was found dead,
an apparent suicide with a gunshot wound to the head. He
apparently was a central figure in Travelgate and Filegate
and handled Whitewater matters for the Clintons. Starr is
examining his death and has yet to confirm former prober Bob
Fiske’s conclusion that it was a suicide in the park where
Foster was found.

W is for Whitewater, the Arkansas land deal that started it
all, with questions about whether the Clintons improperly
benefited from funds from Jim McDougal’s Madison Guarantee
savings-and-loan, which went belly up, costing taxpayers an
estimated $60 million.

X is for the Xeroxed copy of Hillary Clinton’s law billing
records that were found in the White House book room, two
years after they were first sought. The pages had Mrs.
Clinton’s fingerprints around the section on Castle Grande
– there were red ink notations in the late Vince Foster’s
handwriting.

Y is for the young White House aides who were hired by the
Clinton administration despite FBI background checks that
found “recent” use of hard drugs like cocaine, crack and
hallucinogens.

Z is for zero – the amount of money the Clintons had at
risk in Whitewater, even though they were equal partners
with the McDougals. – By Deborah Orin and Thomas Galvin

19

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is really the core of the matter.

The Democrats thought Saddam had WMD’s too. They voted for war just like the Republicans.

Bush did not build a time machine back to the late 90’s and doctor the intelligence.

If the Democrats want to be relevant they need to bring real ideas to the table. This destructive political game they are playing will not help them or the country. It may raise some money from the lunatic fringe.

Can anyone explain to me that if the Democrats want to shed light on the truthfulness of the prewar info, why do they need a closed session to discuss this?

If they had any dirt they would be shouting it from the rooftops, not hiding it behind closed doors.[/quote]

You’re right. The democrats did think that Saddam had weapons.

But.

They were lied to by Bush. They didn’t have direct access to the intelligence. The reports from the CIA and other agencies were edited untill they said what Bush wanted them to say.

Which goes to show, you can never trust a Republican. I knew that all along. Let’s hope my Democratic friends remember this.

Don’t cloud the issue Jeff. Your precious Bush got you into this nightmare. Will he be able to pull you out? Atm, he’s not even acknowledging it’s a nightmare.

You are, or you woudln’t be so eager to share the blame with “your Democratic friends”.

20

[quote]rainjack wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
Why is Osama Bin Ladin still at large? He and his group claimed the WTC and Pentagon attack. Why was that hunt ended and our attention was suddenly shifted to Iraq? Because the opportunity to enact the neocon manifesto was ripe and they used deceit and deception to take advantage of it.

The hunt goes on for UBL. No one has stopped looking for him. The fact that he is in a very remote area where he has many sympathizers that are willing to give him harbor does not make the job easy.

This is not a video game that you can win in 30 minutes. It takes time. How much time? It’ll take until we find him, or indisputable proof theat he is dead.

Iraq has been on the front burener of our foreign policy since the first Gulf War. I would hardly call it ‘suddenly shifting’.

Exactly what is the “neocon manifesto”? You should try harder than that. You are sounding like Harris457 - or whatever the hell his name is.

Jeff, give it a rest with your partisan cheerleading. It has become tiresome and boring.

Why is it okay for you to spout off your brand of partisan BS and anti-war skirt flipping?

What is boring and tiresome is that the anti-war crowd has been singing the same song since 2003. Geez - at least learn a new verse, or a new melody.

[/quote]

When exactly was the last time Bishie mentioned Osama’s name in public?

And, really, Rain Man (if we’re going to play the making-fun-of-names-game), for you to accuse anyone of “partisn BS” is…well, I think we all know about the pot and the fucktard.