My Democrat amigos MUST READ! - Page 2

"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

"We 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 (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), 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 threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate 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 weapon 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 THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !

TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR.

The whitewater investigation produced more convictions per dollars spent than any other grand jury, so I would have to say that it was worth while. As far as impeachment, I believe anyone who lies while under oath in a Grand Jury should go to jail, not just impeached. You or I would be put in jail. Furthermore, when you state that Bush lied, please state specifics instead of throwing the generic statement out. So for, I have not heard one lie from him yet. Please advise me if I am incorrect. And please, get over the Clinton sex thing. Only liberals care about that. Lying to the grand jury is a different matter.

quote:

---

Furthermore, when you state that Bush lied, please state specifics instead of throwing the generic statement out. So for, I have not heard one lie from him yet. Please advise me if I am incorrect. And please, get over the Clinton sex thing. Only liberals care about that. Lying to the grand jury is a different matter.

---

Thanks IU...and I have yet to see anywhere Bush lied for the sake to screw an entire country.

IF he wanted to screw this country he would have IGNORED the tragidies like Clinton did.

Take note; the media did NOT report MUCH on the BIG losses of life of American ppl and soldiers when Clinton was in office.
It was a quickie in the news, and not mentioned again.

Imagine, if one of those casualties were YOUR children or grandchildren...and Clinton let them die, and more later...cos he didnt do a thing for the defense spending.

He tried to destroy our military.....and that seems A~ok with liberals.

BUT these same ppl would SCREAM the loudest if it were their lives a terrorist was after.

BUSH does more for you than you know.

quote:

---

BUSH does more for you than you know.

---

Well we can both agree by his own deeds are the seed of his own undoing.
It is upon his own head, as he judged, he is judged?
I was noting the date on those examples u gave?
So isn't 911 factor that should be included to give some prespective?

I noticed on page five of my local paper yesterday that Iraq did indeed try to buy uranium from Niger. So much for the lie (incidently, the famous 16 words from the state of the union address about yellowcake is what most people said he lied about). Now, what did he lie about, nothing.

Gee, let me see did they find any evidence of these WMDs, tht Sassam had? No?
This nuclear material that Saddam tried to buy? Was it weapons grade or could it have been used in a nuclear power plant? Wonder which one of us was selling it?
I am not really for sure what it is he tried to buy?
Oh, I get it, he ran out because of all those nuclear bombs
he made & buried in the desert, secretly, right?
Now I get your drift, integrity is only a justification away!

As a matter of fact, they have. Would you call a artillery shell filled with sarin a WMD? The japanese did. Would you call an artillery shell filled with mustard gas a WMD. I would, especially if I were on the receiving end of it. These were actually exploded to kill our troopsl It is not the quantity expected, but make no mistake, they are WMD. They just moved over a ton of enriched uranium out of Iraq two weeks ago. Would you say that this had potential for being a WMD? I most certainly would. So, your sarcasm is in vane and you are sorely misinformed.

Guess what they just found in Iraq according to the Associated Press? Three nuclear warheads. Now, try saying that these are not WMD. Sure would ruin my day if it went off here.

Now they are saying the report is not true. What ever happened to good investigative reporting.

Saddam had nuclear capacity & did not use it (them)?
The Terrorible Tyrant?

quote:

---

Three nuclear warheads

---

Well, that would cause Ben Laden interest to peak!

quote:

---

They just moved over a ton of enriched uranium out of Iraq two weeks ago.

---

No I haven't seen that article.
Funny all those inspections (UN) then the war, the whole time we were waiting for the chenical agents or biological weapon to be reported? Then all the seaching done, all the suspects detained, is there a clear case for Saddam being a tyrant? Yes I would have to agree, did he have nuclear capacity?
3 nukes, no delivery stystem?

quote:

---

The japanese did. Would you call an artillery shell filled with mustard gas a WMD. I would, especially if I were on the receiving end of it.

---

Ya, the point is he didn't seem to have much of an arsenal did Saddam?

Having nuclear capibility and having a means to deploy them are two different matters. Following is a link to the article about the uranium.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10066789%255E1702,00.htm
l

IUHoosier, let us think for a moment, if we take his country then he does need a delivery system, all he had to do was to detonate the bombs (after we took it, right).
But what of his own people, well he is the tyrant who ruled them, what would he care about those whom he ruled especially as he could no longer rule them?

? Is there a question in there?

quote:

---

Then all the seaching done, all the suspects detained, is there a clear case for Saddam being a tyrant? Yes I would have to agree, did he have nuclear capacity ?

---

So why didn't he set them off? I think he had quite some time hiding in a hole but he could get to them to set them off?
No, he did not have nuclear capacity

quote:

---

They now say the report was a rumor.

---

Actually I had quite a time tring to access the site at all, never found the pages givien.

You need to read the second reference. They now say the report was a rumor.