T Nation

Where Do They Stand?

“Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”?Bill Clinton 1996

More Clinton-
“If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will,” said Clinton. “He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction.”

Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

“The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government–a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people,” Clinton said

Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces. ?exert from CNN.com December 16, 1996

“We owe a great debt of gratitude to our troops, to the president, to our intelligence services, to all who had a hand in apprehending Saddam. Now he will be brought to justice, and we hope that the prospects for peace and stability in Iraq will improve.”, Hillary Clinton after the capture of Saddam Hussien when support for the war was 62%

“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” – Tom Daschle(democrat) in 1998 under a democrat president

“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” – John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” – John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” – Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” – Al Gore, 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.” – Bob Graham, December 2002

“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” – Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” – Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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.” – John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” – John Kerry, October 9, 2002

“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” – John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

“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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” – Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” – Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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 16, 1998

“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” – Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

“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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources – something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” – John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.” – Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

What people will say for a vote. The democratic party has no principal. They just oppose the other side no matter what it stands for as long as it gets votes.

Yeah, but the democrats EXPECTED Clinton to lie about Saddam. Bush was supposed to be the honest one, which is why they’re so horrified at his ability to tell the same lies Clinton told, and then have the AUDACITY to act upon those lies.
I’m pretty sure that’s it.

But he no where in his speech said that he was ready to commit American troops to the cause. It is one thing to recognise where the issues lie–it is another matter all together to decide to topple a government because we don’t like it.

Besides this it is nothing more than rhetoric–the favored method of communication of all politicians.

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
Yeah, but the democrats EXPECTED Clinton to lie about Saddam. Bush was supposed to be the honest one, which is why they’re so horrified at his ability to tell the same lies Clinton told, and then have the AUDACITY to act upon those lies.
I’m pretty sure that’s it.[/quote]

Most reasonable explanation yet.

Jumper,

This makes a hash of the argument that this is “Bush’s War.”

I have never seen an counter argument given by the leftie loons that effectively addresses the disconnect between those unambiguous statements and their stance today.

It leads one to the inevitable conclusion that the dems do not have true principles. Further, whichever way the wind blows, they follow.

Leadership is not always going with public opinion. If you believe something to be right, you LEAD. You inform people. If it is the right course, you will be exonerated by your peers and by history.

I’ve been saying it for years, Bush is right in his decision to invade Iraq. However, his p.r. war has been a failure.

He needed to be out in front of the cameras, at the local shopping malls, in Iraq, talking about the war every, single day. Get ahead of the agenda.

The democrats should never have won in 2006. Yes, I’m aware of how difficult it is to maintain or pick up seats in an off year. Especially, during a second term. However, the dems are such a farce, I thought no right minded person would vote for them.

I was wrong.

I have to put the majority of the blame on Bush’s P.R. machine.

He should have had the saddam tapes playing throughout the spring and summer of 2006. He should have thrown the quotes of the dems in their face in 2002.

What did we hear? Well, we don’t want to refight that discussion all over again.

Wrong. The dems only issue (their hypocrisy should have been brillantly illuminated) was the War in Iraq. Bush didn’t see it and he is paying for that error.

On to RUDY!!!

JeffR

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But he no where in his speech said that he was ready to commit American troops to the cause. It is one thing to recognise where the issues lie–it is another matter all together to decide to topple a government because we don’t like it.

Besides this it is nothing more than rhetoric–the favored method of communication of all politicians.[/quote]

Wrong. Look at kerry. Look at the guys you voted for. They authorized FORCE. Are you seriously trying to contend that the dems were thinking that force DIDN’T include troops?

What a joke.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But he no where in his speech said that he was ready to commit American troops to the cause. It is one thing to recognise where the issues lie–it is another matter all together to decide to topple a government because we don’t like it.

Besides this it is nothing more than rhetoric–the favored method of communication of all politicians.

Wrong. Look at kerry. Look at the guys you voted for. They authorized FORCE. Are you seriously trying to contend that the dems were thinking that force DIDN’T include troops?

What a joke.

JeffR
[/quote]

The way they explain it is they authorized the president the power to use his discretion in the event we were actually waiting for the “mushroom cloud”.

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Wrong. Look at kerry. Look at the guys you voted for. They authorized FORCE. Are you seriously trying to contend that the dems were thinking that force DIDN’T include troops?

What a joke.

JeffR
[/quote]

I’m pretty sure they were thinking of “Force” in U.N. terms - i.e. “A very Forceful letter backed up by a forceful resolution which resolves nothing, without the resolve to back up their words with force.”

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But he no where in his speech said that he was ready to commit American troops to the cause. It is one thing to recognise where the issues lie–it is another matter all together to decide to topple a government because we don’t like it.

Besides this it is nothing more than rhetoric–the favored method of communication of all politicians.

Wrong. Look at kerry. Look at the guys you voted for. They authorized FORCE. Are you seriously trying to contend that the dems were thinking that force DIDN’T include troops?

What a joke.

JeffR

The way they explain it is they authorized the president the power to use his discretion in the event we were actually waiting for the “mushroom cloud”.[/quote]

liftus,

That is nonsense. I think you know it. Your pals knew exactly what was happening. I can find more quotes of the same people directly supporting ground troops.

If you are now going to swallow their “mushroom cloud” crap, then you are beyond saving.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
If you are now going to swallow their “mushroom cloud” crap, then you are beyond saving.

[/quote]
What are you talking about? That’s exactly how this war was sold to us.

Iraq has/had WMDs, blah, blah, blah.

Intelligence, blah, blah, blah.

Just because I didn’t buy into it doesn’t mean the rest of the sheep in congress didn’t. I am a little more realistic than that.

Besides, you and every other neocon know we had nothing to fear from Iraq. It was a red-herring we were after all along. The fact of the matter is we had to be lied to in order for us to “buy it” because decorum dictates it. We beleived the lies because we wanted to and we allowed our selves to be fooled because we are. This does not mean any side is right or wrong. Both sides got it wrong.

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Wrong. Look at kerry. Look at the guys you voted for. They authorized FORCE. Are you seriously trying to contend that the dems were thinking that force DIDN’T include troops?

What a joke.

JeffR

I’m pretty sure they were thinking of “Force” in U.N. terms - i.e. “A very Forceful letter backed up by a forceful resolution which resolves nothing, without the resolve to back up their words with force.”
[/quote]

It was a typo. They meant farce.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
If you are now going to swallow their “mushroom cloud” crap, then you are beyond saving.

What are you talking about? That’s exactly how this war was sold to us.

Iraq has/had WMDs, blah, blah, blah.

Intelligence, blah, blah, blah.

Just because I didn’t buy into it doesn’t mean the rest of the sheep in congress didn’t. I am a little more realistic than that.

Besides, you and every other neocon know we had nothing to fear from Iraq. It was a red-herring we were after all along. The fact of the matter is we had to be lied to in order for us to “buy it” because decorum dictates it. We beleived the lies because we wanted to and we allowed our selves to be fooled because we are. This does not mean any side is right or wrong. Both sides got it wrong.[/quote]

liftus,

You have some serious problems. I don’t have the strength to list them all.

The only thing Bush didn’t get right is the amount of WMD on hand. The rest was correct. saddam was absolutely a threat. Firing on our planes, trying to assassinate former Presidents, actively working to reconstitute his weaponery, arming/harboring/encouraging terrorists, murdering, invading, threatening our allies.

You can go ahead and pin your opinion on one instance where things fell short. However, don’t come on here and pretend that there weren’t plenty of reasons to remove and hang that slime.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
If you are now going to swallow their “mushroom cloud” crap, then you are beyond saving.

What are you talking about? That’s exactly how this war was sold to us.

Iraq has/had WMDs, blah, blah, blah.

Intelligence, blah, blah, blah.

Just because I didn’t buy into it doesn’t mean the rest of the sheep in congress didn’t. I am a little more realistic than that.

Besides, you and every other neocon know we had nothing to fear from Iraq. It was a red-herring we were after all along. The fact of the matter is we had to be lied to in order for us to “buy it” because decorum dictates it. We beleived the lies because we wanted to and we allowed our selves to be fooled because we are. This does not mean any side is right or wrong. Both sides got it wrong.

liftus,

You have some serious problems. I don’t have the strength to list them all.

The only thing Bush didn’t get right is the amount of WMD on hand. The rest was correct. saddam was absolutely a threat. Firing on our planes, trying to assassinate former Presidents, actively working to reconstitute his weaponery, arming/harboring/encouraging terrorists, murdering, invading, threatening our allies.

[/quote]
If there is reason to remove one dictator then there is reason to remove them all. As far as his military firing on our planes, what would you do as the leader of a country with a foreign military (militaries) flying over your country enforcing embargoes which you deem to be illegal. Please note, I am not excusing any of his alleged actions. I would call that exerting one’s natural sovereignty. I do not believe we (or any other country) have the right to dictate how other countries should enforce policy.

If we are a country with supposed “moral authority” then we should lead by example and strive to set the example. There is a logical disconnect in our foreign policy. It begins with the assumption that we speak for the rest of the world democracies. We believe and preach self-governance yet we pick and choose where we will allow it.

There is no proof that Saddam Hussein was a threat or ever carried out any aggression against this country prior to our involvement in Kuwait. So he had weapons (or didn’t)–so what?! So do we–more of them, in fact. So they actually used them? Again, so what?! So have we–against more nations than he has. What gives us the moral authority to act in the way we did? We can argue that we are protecting our interests–so can they.

Is there a logical response, either relative or absolute, that can be given for why we deposed the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein?

We either answer that they acted aggressively against a non-threatening neighbor in which case we should now be expected to overthrow every dictator guilty of these crimes; or we answer that he was a direct threat to this country. We’re still waiting for proof. I believe we were told this would most likely come in the form of a “mushroom cloud”.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But he no where in his speech said that he was ready to commit American troops to the cause. It is one thing to recognise where the issues lie–it is another matter all together to decide to topple a government because we don’t like it.

Besides this it is nothing more than rhetoric–the favored method of communication of all politicians.

Wrong. Look at kerry. Look at the guys you voted for. They authorized FORCE. Are you seriously trying to contend that the dems were thinking that force DIDN’T include troops?

What a joke.

JeffR
[/quote]

Since when did senators and politicians stop voting to make the lobbiests happy, and speaking to make the people happy?

They haven’t.

Watching this crap over and over again is just plain sad.

Sometimes life and the situations on the planet are a little more complex than out of context, time displaced, quotes can account for.

Get a grip. Citizens need to stop accepting childish kids games when it comes to political discussions.

[quote]jumper wrote:
What people will say for a vote. The democratic party has no principal. They just oppose the other side no matter what it stands for as long as it gets votes. [/quote]

And that differs from Republican strategy how? I’m assuming you forgot the lapse on the ‘National Contract’ from the 1994 off-year elections, where the Republicans took 27 seats by running under a generalized criteria and then in 2000 shit on it. I’m not trying to say I’m a democrat either, but don’t make a dumbass remark like that.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
If you are now going to swallow their “mushroom cloud” crap, then you are beyond saving.

What are you talking about? That’s exactly how this war was sold to us.

Iraq has/had WMDs, blah, blah, blah.

Intelligence, blah, blah, blah.

Oh that reminds me! To this day the Republicans have not released a report stating any real fidnings that demonstrate evidence of WMDs or anything relevant to them in Iraq, in case you’re wondering, the report was due in July 2004. Bush admitted we aren’t in Iraq because of 9/11, and there are no WMDs, and 12/18 of the suppsoed hijackers are Saudis, so we’re in Iraq because? Any takers…any one at all…

Just because I didn’t buy into it doesn’t mean the rest of the sheep in congress didn’t. I am a little more realistic than that.

Besides, you and every other neocon know we had nothing to fear from Iraq. It was a red-herring we were after all along. The fact of the matter is we had to be lied to in order for us to “buy it” because decorum dictates it. We beleived the lies because we wanted to and we allowed our selves to be fooled because we are. This does not mean any side is right or wrong. Both sides got it wrong.[/quote]

[quote]MisterAmazing wrote:
jumper wrote:
What people will say for a vote. The democratic party has no principal. They just oppose the other side no matter what it stands for as long as it gets votes.

And that differs from Republican strategy how? I’m assuming you forgot the lapse on the ‘National Contract’ from the 1994 off-year elections, where the Republicans took 27 seats by running under a generalized criteria and then in 2000 shit on it. I’m not trying to say I’m a democrat either, but don’t make a dumbass remark like that.[/quote]

MisterAmazing (great name!!!)

The difference is war. The difference is the fact that our enemies look to the very waffling being shown by the democrats in order to sustain their war effort.

I can’t say it any plainer than that.

JeffR

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
If you are now going to swallow their “mushroom cloud” crap, then you are beyond saving.

What are you talking about? That’s exactly how this war was sold to us.

Iraq has/had WMDs, blah, blah, blah.

Intelligence, blah, blah, blah.

Just because I didn’t buy into it doesn’t mean the rest of the sheep in congress didn’t. I am a little more realistic than that.

Besides, you and every other neocon know we had nothing to fear from Iraq. It was a red-herring we were after all along. The fact of the matter is we had to be lied to in order for us to “buy it” because decorum dictates it. We beleived the lies because we wanted to and we allowed our selves to be fooled because we are. This does not mean any side is right or wrong. Both sides got it wrong.

liftus,

You have some serious problems. I don’t have the strength to list them all.

The only thing Bush didn’t get right is the amount of WMD on hand. The rest was correct. saddam was absolutely a threat. Firing on our planes, trying to assassinate former Presidents, actively working to reconstitute his weaponery, arming/harboring/encouraging terrorists, murdering, invading, threatening our allies.

If there is reason to remove one dictator then there is reason to remove them all. As far as his military firing on our planes, what would you do as the leader of a country with a foreign military (militaries) flying over your country enforcing embargoes which you deem to be illegal. Please note, I am not excusing any of his alleged actions. I would call that exerting one’s natural sovereignty. I do not believe we (or any other country) have the right to dictate how other countries should enforce policy.

If we are a country with supposed “moral authority” then we should lead by example and strive to set the example. There is a logical disconnect in our foreign policy. It begins with the assumption that we speak for the rest of the world democracies. We believe and preach self-governance yet we pick and choose where we will allow it.

There is no proof that Saddam Hussein was a threat or ever carried out any aggression against this country prior to our involvement in Kuwait. So he had weapons (or didn’t)–so what?! So do we–more of them, in fact. So they actually used them? Again, so what?! So have we–against more nations than he has. What gives us the moral authority to act in the way we did? We can argue that we are protecting our interests–so can they.

Is there a logical response, either relative or absolute, that can be given for why we deposed the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein?

We either answer that they acted aggressively against a non-threatening neighbor in which case we should now be expected to overthrow every dictator guilty of these crimes; or we answer that he was a direct threat to this country. We’re still waiting for proof. I believe we were told this would most likely come in the form of a “mushroom cloud”.[/quote]

liftus,

Sorry. I made an error. You drew me in. I took the bait.

I know, you are for communism and pacifism.

I should have known better.

When human nature changes, we will be able to treat brutal dictators like one of your college professor pals. We’ll replace death and unspeakable violence with a nice latte and read some quotes from your pals in “THE MOVEMENT.”

Until everything changes, your ideas are unworkable.

JeffR