| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction
"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." S - 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 nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have 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 is calculating 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 156 days to go.. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
In article , rgrew176
@aol.com says... Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction You've completely missed the point Dave. No one questions the possibility the WMDs were there. The complaint is how we went there to solve the problem. No consensus, no coalition, no use of diplomacy. A march to war on trumped up information (leave WMDs behind a moment), beating the drums ever louder -- foregoing diplomatic resolutions for a **** you, get out of my way, he's toast approach. It's the unilateral approach that has America completely responsible militarily, monetarily, ethically, morally responsible for the outcome. Our kids lives and our cash at risk. Bush is finally getting around to the true ambition of this administration, to shove democracy down the throats of the mideast. As many of the rec.boats contributors have been telling you and others, the basis of this action can be found in the treatises written by the political alliance known as Project for the New American Century. It's based on the 1970s movement initiated by Kissinger and has as its founding premise the idea that controlling the mideast is manditory if the US expects to remain the only superpower. It's not about having control of the oil product, it's about holding sway in the territory. That insures it doesn't fall into the wrong hands and the ability to have a hand in determining world oil pricing. Now, you are finally hearing Bush's long term plan. It's not about terrorism or Osama bin Laden. It's about influencing control over the region. So, the American public has been sold a bill of goods based on a movement that was in place long before the events of 911. Bush and Rice decided within days to use the events to draw Iraq into the the fray. So, have fun pointing at trees Dave, but don't forget to notice the forest. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
jps wrote:
In article , rgrew176 @aol.com says... Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction You've completely missed the point Dave. No one questions the possibility the WMDs were there. Oh really? It was not that long ago that you were on that bandwagon where you were claiming that there were no WMD and that the war "was all about oil". The complaint is how we went there to solve the problem. No consensus, no coalition, no use of diplomacy. We had a coalition of over 40 countries. While we were the big dog in the pond, we were hardly alone. In fact, had it not been for France Genrmany and Russia, the UN would likely have gone along with us. A march to war on trumped up information According to which facts? (leave WMDs behind a moment), beating the drums ever louder -- foregoing diplomatic resolutions for a **** you, get out of my way, he's toast approach. Diplomacy had been going on for the last 12 years. Technically, since the conditions of the UN resolution which ended the Gulf war, have been violated, we were doing nothing more than finding Saddam in default, and resuming what we stopped 12 years ago. It's the unilateral approach that has America completely responsible militarily, monetarily, ethically, morally responsible for the outcome. Our kids lives and our cash at risk. Since we did not "go it alone", it was not unilateral. Therefore your premise is flawed. Bush is finally getting around to the true ambition of this administration, to shove democracy down the throats of the mideast. And that's a bad thing? That people have self determination? Would they rather have someone tell them what to do and threaten their families if they don't? As many of the rec.boats contributors have been telling you and others, the basis of this action can be found in the treatises written by the political alliance known as Project for the New American Century. Even if true, what is fundamentally wrong with getting everyone on the same page? There would be less potential for conflict if we were all allowed the same freedoms. It's based on the 1970s movement initiated by Kissinger and has as its founding premise the idea that controlling the mideast is manditory if the US expects to remain the only superpower. Not exactly. It's not about US supremecy as it is about global cohesion. It's not about having control of the oil product, it's about holding sway in the territory. What happened to your old "it's about the oil" cry? That insures it doesn't fall into the wrong hands and the ability to have a hand in determining world oil pricing. Now, you are finally hearing Bush's long term plan. It's not about terrorism or Osama bin Laden. It's about influencing control over the region. We don't "control" our own country. Control implies a dictatorship-like regime. Establishing a freely elected democracy is hardly "controlling" it. We might be pushing history along a little faster, but the end result is worth it. So, the American public has been sold a bill of goods based on a movement that was in place long before the events of 911. Bush and Rice decided within days to use the events to draw Iraq into the the fray. Again, where are your facts? Who is your "deep throat"? So, have fun pointing at trees Dave, but don't forget to notice the forest. I find it curious, although not that all surprising that you don't find it the least bit disengenuous that those quoted people have shifted their viewpoints so radically and in such a partisan way. Dave |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
WaIIy wrote:
The leftists clouded obsession with power and control renders all fairness and reasonable thought null and void. Coming from a flatliner like "Wally," this has to be one of the funniest posts ever. Come on, Wally, admit it: you've never had an *actual* thought in your entire life. There's nothing in your head that wasn't programmed into it by the BORG who control *your* president. -- Email sent to is never read. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... We had a coalition of over 40 countries. While we were the big dog in the pond, we were hardly alone. In fact, had it not been for France Genrmany and Russia, the UN would likely have gone along with us. A coalition could be considered: 1) Other countries sending soldiers. 2) Other countries sending any other kind of material assistance. Spain sent a hospital ship, which I understand made a great contribution. The British sent troops. Recently, Poland and Ukraine have assisted with security. A coalition is NOT: 1) 40 countries whose sole contribution was an agreement not to publicly criticize our plan, in return for which they'd get some sort of financial aid, or not have existing aid reduced or withdrawn. So, where does the number 40 come from, Dave? What is YOUR definition of a "coalition"? Since we did not "go it alone", it was not unilateral. Therefore your premise is flawed. In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the first day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in addition to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain. If you'll read some history going back to World War II, and as far forward as the present day, you'll run across the term "the special relationship" used by every U.S. president and every British prime minister. Because of that "special relationship", it'll be a cold day in hell when we and the British don't cooperate. Does a coalition consist of 2-1/2? |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... We had a coalition of over 40 countries. While we were the big dog in the pond, we were hardly alone. In fact, had it not been for France Genrmany and Russia, the UN would likely have gone along with us. A coalition could be considered: 1) Other countries sending soldiers. 2) Other countries sending any other kind of material assistance. Spain sent a hospital ship, which I understand made a great contribution. The British sent troops. Recently, Poland and Ukraine have assisted with security. A coalition is NOT: 1) 40 countries whose sole contribution was an agreement not to publicly criticize our plan, in return for which they'd get some sort of financial aid, or not have existing aid reduced or withdrawn. So, where does the number 40 come from, Dave? What is YOUR definition of a "coalition"? Why, it would be identical with the way the Bush Administration describes it, of course. Dave is a mindless supporter of and beliver in the Bush Administration. -- Email sent to is never read. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
"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 You know, I'm surprised that a Bush apologist would ever post this. Look at the statement by Clinton. In 1998, Clinton is concerned about denying Iraq "the capacity to develop" weapons of mass destruction. By one means or another. Just a few years later, Bush announces that Iraq has been stockpiling all sort s of evil crap for many years, has a huge pile that he's just aching to dump on the US, and that our only course of action is a military invasion and a regime change. You know what is so easily overlooked anymore? That "accounting" for the WMD that the US demanded and that Iraq delivered last winter. The enormously detailed, several thousand page document that Bush dismissed as "all lies!" almost as soon as it was received. So far, the evidence (or lack of same) suggests that the Iraqi accounting was a lot more accurate than Bush's characterization of same as a "lie." |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:16:58 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:
In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the first day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in addition to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain. Don't forget the Australians. They had special forces in Iraq. Still, way short of 40 countries. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Politics aside: 9-11-01; Let us never forget | General | |||
| Can Tow from Florida to Northeast for $$ | General | |||
Linear Mode
