Dems: Hypocricy of War

[Psycho4Bud]

"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." Ex-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." Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], 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 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 Senators 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, 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, 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

"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

"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

"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 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

"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." Senator John Edwards (D-NC), October 10, 2002

"While the distance between the United States and Iraq is great, Saddam Hussein's ability to use his chemical and biological weapons against us is not constrained by geography - it can be accomplished in a number of different ways - which is what makes this threat so real and persuasive." Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), October 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." 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

"The essential facts are known. We know of the weapons in Saddam's possession: chemical, biological, and nuclear in time. We know of his unequaled willingness to use them. We know his history. His invasions of his neighbors. His dreams of achieving hegemonic control over the Arab world. His record of anti-American rage. His willingness to terrorize, to slaughter, to suppress his own people and others. We need not stretch to imagine nightmare scenarios in which Saddam makes common cause with the terrorists who want to kill us Americans and destroy our way of life." Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), September 13, 2002

"Make no mistake: Saddam Hussein is a ruthless tyrant, and he must give up his weapons of mass destruction. We support the President in the course he has followed so far: working with Congress, working with the United Nations, insisting on strong and unfettered inspections. We must convince the world that Saddam Hussein is not America's problem alone; he is the world's problem. And we urge President Bush to stay this course for we are far stronger when we stand with other nations than when we stand alone." Governor Gary Locke (D-WA), January 28, 2003 Democratic Response to President Bush's "State of the Union" address
Democratic quotes about Iraq

Besides Joseph Lieberman, it seems that this a hell of a group of hypocrits! So what is the next operation that they'll be all for until somebody gets hurt? Maybe Sudan?

""Genocide is underway in Darfur, Sudan. Already, 50,000 African Muslims have been killed and 1.2 million displaced by the Sudanese Government and by Arab Janjaweed militias armed and encouraged by Khartoum. The Bush Administration itself warned of the magnitude of the crisis, if no action is taken. Andrew Natsios, head of USAID, said in June that "if nothing changes we will have one million casualties." We cannot, in good conscience, stand by and let this genocide continue.".......Barack Obama

Have a good one!:s4:

Psycho4Bud Reviewed by Psycho4Bud on 06-16-2008. Dems: Hypocricy of War "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." Ex-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." Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from , but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the Rating: 5

[painretreat]

So, if BO is elected, we go to war in Africa to protect muslims and continue to fight them in Iraq? I think not!

Read the quotes; what were the Republican ones? Since, we had a change of administration from the White House to the Crawford House-until 911, the ball was dropped. Can we reasonably blame S.H. Iraq for 911? How many terrorists have we actually caught in Iraq? as opposed to say, Afganistan? Where we need to be!

I am sure they were all reading the same data and drew conclusions from it. Which has since been proven to be wrong and regretful! Reps & Demos! It just seems the mission there has been accomplished! Let them set up their own gov't. Reagan set up Saddam thru Rumsfeld, via assination of prev. gov't there. We need to leave those poor people alone!

Seems all the quotes above have already taken a bite out of the aspirations of the political careers of the ones that stated such!

Obama, wasn't there, or surely would have said the same things! His claim to fame, no vote! It is like betting on the long shot in the Derby! wish I had at the last one! :thumbsup:

[Psycho4Bud]

So, if BO is elected, we go to war in Africa to protect muslims and continue to fight them in Iraq? I think not!

No, we'll just leave enough in Iraq to protect 100,000 civilian workers, our diplomats, embassy, and the Iraqi's that were loyal to us. How many does that take again?

As for Sudan.....his quote not mine. Clinton tried that once...18 killed for what? Without troops how would Obama stop the genocide....with a wave of his mighty hand? LMAO...he has this illusion that when he talks all the world will see the light.

Read the quotes; what were the Republican ones? Since, we had a change of administration from the White House to the Crawford House-until 911, the ball was dropped. Can we reasonably blame S.H. Iraq for 911? How many terrorists have we actually caught in Iraq? as opposed to say, Afganistan? Where we need to be!

We can't blame S.H. for 9-11 but ol' Saddam did have his own plans in the making per the Russians.

Don't really know the numbers, that's one thing that our government never did release....head counts.

I am sure they were all reading the same data and drew conclusions from it. Which has since been proven to be wrong and regretful! Reps & Demos! It just seems the mission there has been accomplished! Let them set up their own gov't. Reagan set up Saddam thru Rumsfeld, via assination of prev. gov't there. We need to leave those poor people alone!

Saddam became the official leader in 1979....Reagan took office in 1980. Another point of interest:

Various U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials have asserted that Saddam was strongly linked with the CIA, and that U.S. intelligence, under President John F. Kennedy, helped Saddam's party seize power for the first time in 1963.
Saddam Hussein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obama, wasn't there, or surely would have said the same things! His claim to fame, no vote! It is like betting on the long shot in the Derby! wish I had at the last one!

Kind of handy for him....when the Iraq vote was taking place he was dodging issues in the Illinois State House with "present" votes. When you listen to him you'd swear that he was on the Senate floor going against the mainstream from BOTH parties.

Have a good one!:s4:

[painretreat]

I read all the threads and links with due diligence! You just cannot dispute the facts and learning where to get them is very enlightening! Bet we get more facts and truths here than any source I have (well, that I know how to use well).

I cannot support wreckless abandonment, but it sounds good at times. To think, the civilians and others, left behind in Iraq and how many troops that will take. I am not sure, what will it take! Can't we have Haliburton pay for them! Oops! they are having trouble with the service they have hired to take care of their own! I just have no answers!

I feel we have done a terrible thing to that country, yet I think on a much smaller scale than a President would! Plus, a more compassionate one. In the big scheme of things, if we used 'weapons of mass destruction' as a basis for war, we could do it anywhere. It seems the U.N. let us down and a 'small thinker' took Texas justice to fix the Iraq situation. So, we now know, that hasn't fixed anything and we do have a responsibility to put the country back in the state of function it was in, prior to war. But, I read and hear conflicting statements from the actual citizens of Iraqthat stayed. Like katrina, a lot are still displaced!

I really wish they had some sort of fair panel of Iraqi's, from all walks of life form a unified type of Congress to give feedback of what is being done to their country and how they feel about it!

What did we do in Viet Nam when we left? I do not seem to remember. I don't think I've heard much talk about it! We were so happy to have our soldiers home.

There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, cause we stayed there and made sure there was mass destruction of Iraq! When the mission was done, we should have been finished, then! Hindsight, 20/20!

I admire getting this information: to know where Obama was when the vote went down! I wondered where the heck he was, without any vote! I feel that is cowardly! He was not a good choice compared to all the brilliant choice's we had to choose from. Not every choice was perfect, but that is life. We have the one that was a little more popular than another. As opposed to: Which of all candidates was the best! I learned, I do not like a super delegate deciding! I wonder if the results would have been different, if the super-delegates got together and picked the best Democrat of all the candidates,if we would have had a better choice or even a different one! It came down to money vs. money and a choice and popularity. Like High School!

This coming election is very important and I have no clue who I will vote for and wonder, will it make a difference? I do hope to continue to become more enlightened through these threads! Thanks for voicing yours, I admire you that have the courage to state how you feel and what you believe! No one is wrong! pr:thumbsup:

We don't even know if our press is being allowed to give us all the facts of this 'war' to make good decisions with. From begining and all the way through it! And that ticks me more than anything!

[Lovelessone]

As much as I can't stand McCain, he had it right about staying in Iraq until the job is done. Nation building has become a dirty word because of liberals (please read liberal and not Democrat).

I know what Japan turned into when we stayed.

I know what Vietnam is now since we bailed out on them.

I know what Iraq turned into when we listened to the UN and didn't take out it's leadership the first time.

Any country, and I mean any country on the planet that allows it's leadership and government to have "Rape rooms" and uses people as sport cannot be allowed to continue as a sovereign nation. I just don't care about WMDs being there or not when compared to the human rights violations committed in Iraq.