"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity
to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver
them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons
of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies
is
the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent
with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the
region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of
mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has 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

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven
impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We
are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical
and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash
course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclearweapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because
I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we
have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he
disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence
reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members
.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein
will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical
warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence
that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a
developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a
brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He
presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently
prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's
response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons
of
mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS
OIL BUDDIES ???


Capt. American

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 09:55:45 -0800, Capt.American wrote:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity
to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver
them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons
of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


LOL, looks like Clinton was a better President than I thought. It's now
clear his Iraqi policies worked. If our present President had realized
this, 500 young men and women would still be alive and we could have saved
$100 billion dollars.

Despite your attempt to flame "liberals" with this, it seems to me
that you've supported the notion that they were not soft on Iraq
or Saddam. Diplomacy and relative military force were working.
There was no imminent threat, and while there might have been
a reason to invade, it wasn't because of an imminent threat of
WMDs.

"Capt.American" wrote in message
om...
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity
to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver
them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Yes. Among others of his friends.

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS
OIL BUDDIES ???


Capt. American

Yeah, what he said....

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 09:55:45 -0800, Capt.American wrote:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity
to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver
them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons
of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


LOL, looks like Clinton was a better President than I thought. It's now
clear his Iraqi policies worked. If our present President had realized
this, 500 young men and women would still be alive and we could have saved
$100 billion dollars.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 13:10:31 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 09:55:45 -0800, Capt.American wrote:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity
to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver
them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons
of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


LOL, looks like Clinton was a better President than I thought. It's now
clear his Iraqi policies worked. If our present President had realized
this, 500 young men and women would still be alive and we could have saved
$100 billion dollars.

I guess the inspections and sanctions must have been working.

I wonder how many years the Republicans will be blaming Clinton for
all these problems. Now they are claiming that the half trillion
dollar deficit in the proposed budget relates to the "jobs and
security deficits" they inherited from Clinton. Holy crap. I used to
think that Pat Robertson's political insights directly from God were
the nuttiest things the Republicans had to say. Now it is a real
horse race for stupid statements.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity
to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver
them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons
of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


LOL, looks like Clinton was a better President than I thought. It's now
clear his Iraqi policies worked.

Careful, don't give him a stroke.

If our present President had realized
this, 500 young men and women would still be alive and we could have saved
$100 billion dollars.

Closer to $180 billion... and counting....





felton wrote:
I guess the inspections and sanctions must have been working.


Not really all that well. The sanctions were extremely painful for the people
of Iraq, who were suffering the worst deprivation. But it did keep Iraq from
being able to afford any real WMD programs.


I wonder how many years the Republicans will be blaming Clinton for
all these problems.

Decades, no doubt. Shucks many of them are still PO'd about FDR although they
are very quick to brag about WW2.


Now they are claiming that the half trillion
dollar deficit in the proposed budget relates to the "jobs and
security deficits" they inherited from Clinton. Holy crap. I used to
think that Pat Robertson's political insights directly from God were
the nuttiest things the Republicans had to say. Now it is a real
horse race for stupid statements.

It looks to me like they are taking pages directly from Nixon's play book....
lie.

The economy? They say "We created X jobs this past quarter, look unemployment
is going down" ....yet unemployment remains very high and jobs are being lost
faster than they are being created.... worse, most newly created jobs are lower
paying.

The war? "We had to invade Iraq because of the imminent threat of WMDs... no
wait, we knew all along there weren't any... it was to free the Iraqi people
and build a stable democracy in the Middle East... shucks no, Halliburton &
Carlyle are NOT making record profits from the war and it's aftermath!"

The national media? "The press & broadcast media are very liberal biased,
that's why they keep saying such bad things about the Bush Administration"
.....yet somehow the media are mostly owned by very conservative oriented big
conglomerates.

Now just apply this to the environment, campaign finance, secret Presidential
executive orders, erosion of Constitutional rights, national energy policy, etc
etc etc.

Entirely too many people will believe whatever is shouted at them loud enough,
often enough, despite contrary evidence right in front of them. People on the
Titanic were telling each other, "This ship unsinkable!" while standing
neck-deep in ice water.

Regards- Doug King

Me too
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Yeah, what he said....

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 09:55:45 -0800, Capt.American wrote:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity
to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver
them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons
of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


LOL, looks like Clinton was a better President than I thought. It's now
clear his Iraqi policies worked. If our present President had realized
this, 500 young men and women would still be alive and we could have
saved
$100 billion dollars.

It would appear then that Bush is only following the Democrats direction.
Wouldn't it?





"Capt.American" wrote in message
om...
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity
to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver
them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons
of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies
is
the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent
with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the
region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of
mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has 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

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven
impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We
are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical
and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash
course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclearweapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because
I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we
have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he
disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence
reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members
.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein
will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical
warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence
that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a
developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a
brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He
presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently
prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's
response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons
of
mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS
OIL BUDDIES ???


Capt. American

I would not call Safire's view balanced. He's pretty right wing.
The facts are that Bushy and co. lied about the threat of WMDs
in Iraq. Then, he proceeded to invade Iraq where 1000s have
died. The containment of Saddam was working, obviously, since
there were no WMDs found. Sure, he was a bad guy. I'm glad
he's gone. That's not the point. The point is that the PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES LIED to the American people and
to the rest of the world. Our national security interests have been
compromized. The international and fairly univeral good will has
been undermined and is at it's lowest historical level. Our national
debt is beyond belief, and it will take generations to deal with it.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 10:21:13 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

There was no imminent threat, and while there might have been
a reason to invade, it wasn't because of an imminent threat of
WMDs.

Let me recommend Safire's column in today's NYT Magazine. He notes that
the
phrase "imminent threat" had, historically, great significance in
international law, since those were the magic words that triggered a
country's right to carry out a preemptive strike. The Pres. carefully
tiptoed around using that phrase, since using it would have been the
equivalent of saying "we're going to attack right now."

In fact, Bush's speeches leading up to the war enunciated a new legal
doctrine. In essence he said that in an age when aggression is carried out
by large-scale terrorist attacks rather than by frontal military assaults,
a
country cannot wait until an attack is "imminent," because the usual signs
that that is the case are absent. The Dems either accepted that doctrine
in
approving the war, or lacked the perception to realize Bush's position
represented a change in the rules. They now want to pretend they didn't do
either, by creating the fairy tale that even though Bush explicitly said
Iraq didn't represent an "imminent" threat, they were led to believe the
threat of an attack was "imminent" and so the historic rule was
misapplied.
Whether voters will accept this fairy tale or realize that it should start
with "once upon a time" we will see in the election.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

So let me get that straight, are you saying that that whole thing you attributed
to Safire you just made up?



"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:43:44 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

I would not call Safire's view balanced. He's pretty right wing.

Ganzy, you just don't get it, do you? Only the first paragraph of my
message--the part about the historical use of the term "imminent" and its
historical legal significance--is Safire. Obviously you didn't read the
article. Rather than address whether his history is factually correct, you
simply start calling him names and then sing your same old hymn. Do you
disagree that historically the word "imminent" attack or threat has been
used to justify a preemptive strike?

The remainder of the message--the part about enunciating an new doctrine
that in today's world a strike may be justified even if attack is not
"imminent," and the Dems' related floundering--is purely my analysis. So
now, instead of calling him names, I suppose you'll start calling me names
and singing your refrain at me.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27