Remember who said what...

[TheGameIs21]

Remember Who Said What!

Now that there is a Presidential campaign underway, many Democrats are now claiming President Bush lied - that there never were any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and that he led us to war solely for his oil buddies.

While they may be saying that today, you might find it interesting to read some of the quotes we've turned up from the past - quotes from Democrats that back up the President's decisions!

"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 [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, 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 an illicit 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 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

 

[smashp]

the irony is you remember every pertinant quote by a democrat but dont acknowledge and ignore quotes by Republicans.

 

[rickn]

both parties are scum, get over it. your only dilemma is figuring out which side is the lesser scum

 

[smashp]

exactly, vote for who will screw you the least.


And my Bet, with a Gop controled House and Senate, is a democrat.

The opposite would hold true if the house and senate were controlled by the democrats.

We need a balance of power in washington.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: smashp
exactly, vote for who will screw you the least.


And my Bet, with a Gop controled House and Senate, is a democrat.

The opposite would hold true if the house and senate were controlled by the democrats.

We need a balance of power in washington.

somehow I feel you are f.o.s and would vote demo even if house and senate were demo as well...just my guess though

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: smashp
the irony is you remember every pertinant quote by a democrat but dont acknowledge and ignore quotes by Republicans.

Not irony... Just a remiinder to all the Democrats who are wanting to damn GWB for his actions even though Democrats are shown above to have agreed with his reasoning at one point.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: smashp
the irony is you remember every pertinant quote by a democrat but dont acknowledge and ignore quotes by Republicans.

Not irony... Just a remiinder to all the Democrats who are wanting to damn GWB for his actions even though Democrats are shown above to have agreed with his reasoning at one point.

When did they invade and occupy a country based on dodgy intel?

 

[smashp]

actually i usually vote for republican at state and local levels. At the Federal level i have voted for candidates from both parties. Many of the Votes I have regretted reguardless of the party.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: smashp
the irony is you remember every pertinant quote by a democrat but dont acknowledge and ignore quotes by Republicans.

Not irony... Just a remiinder to all the Democrats who are wanting to damn GWB for his actions even though Democrats are shown above to have agreed with his reasoning at one point.

When did they invade and occupy a country based on dodgy intel?

Apples and oranges.... my post is about statements made by democrats that are now saying that GWB was wrong. You are wanting to discuss something completely different. start your own thread.

 

[Bowfinger]

The first half of your list precedes Clinton's four-day bombing action against Iraq. It nicely demonstrates the use of current, valid intelligence data to launch a focused, limited attack that successfully addressed the problem at hand. An attack, by the way, that did NOT kill some 10,000 innocent people, cost us $200 billion and counting, and make us a pariah to the rest of the world.

As for the rest of your list, I'd mostly attribute it to a combination of Bush administration deception, especially related to the willful manipulation of intelligence analysis to support a predetermined course of action, and a lack of the leadership and political backbone to stand up to a panicked populace and say, "I don't care if Bush did say you're with us or you're terrorists, we have serious questions that must be answered before we rush to invade another country based on fear and rumors."

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The first half of your list precedes Clinton's four-day bombing action against Iraq. It nicely demonstrates the use of current, valid intelligence data to launch a focused, limited attack that successfully addressed the problem at hand. An attack, by the way, that did NOT kill some 10,000 innocent people, cost us $200 billion and counting, and make us a pariah to the rest of the world.

As for the rest of your list, I'd mostly attribute it to a combination of Bush administration deception, especially related to the willful manipulation of intelligence analysis to support a predetermined course of action, and a lack of the leadership and political backbone to stand up to a panicked populace and say, "I don't care if Bush did say you're with us or you're terrorists, we have serious questions that must be answered before we rush to invade another country based on fear and rumors."

Sounds about right.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Actually, Intelligence officials have said that Clinton's bombings in Iraq destroyed most of the Weapons Stockpile.

Iraq's weapons and facilities, he says, had been destroyed in three phases: by allied bombardment in the 1991 Gulf War; by U.N. inspectors in the half-decade after that war; and by President Clinton's 1998 bombing campaign. (Clinton's airstrikes, by now widely forgotten, were even at the time widely dismissed as a political diversion; they took place during the weekend when the House of Representatives voted for impeachment. But according to Kay, they destroyed Iraq's remaining infrastructure for building chemical weapons.)

Straight from Bush's stooge himself Mr. Kay.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: smashp
the irony is you remember every pertinant quote by a democrat but dont acknowledge and ignore quotes by Republicans.

Not irony... Just a remiinder to all the Democrats who are wanting to damn GWB for his actions even though Democrats are shown above to have agreed with his reasoning at one point.

When did they invade and occupy a country based on dodgy intel?

Apples and oranges.... my post is about statements made by democrats that are now saying that GWB was wrong. You are wanting to discuss something completely different. start your own thread.

Yes, "Apples and Oranges". "Words and Actions" are also "Apples and Oranges".

 

[fjord]

The point is that ALL those opinions/assertions of WsMD vis-a-vis Iraq were wrong or lies. No other possibility exists.

The Bush administration asserted they knew exactly where those WsMD were.

Now, much and many have speculated on what happen to these mythical WsMD, after we attacked Iraq--But that is just fancyfull sillyness.

If the Bush administration knew the whereabouts of WsMD, why didn't they give those positions to the weapons inspectors?

Fails miserably the smell test.

This is not a case of bad or faulty intelligence. This is a case of a pre-determined policy af agression. An illegal, immoral, criminal action.

After 9-11, it was easier than cherry picking to lie to the American public.

 

[nutxo]

Just look at his comments on NO child left behind, then look at his voting record on Brady. Then take a look at the supreme courts ruling on Brady.

Kerry's a 2 face.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: smashp
the irony is you remember every pertinant quote by a democrat but dont acknowledge and ignore quotes by Republicans.

Not irony... Just a remiinder to all the Democrats who are wanting to damn GWB for his actions even though Democrats are shown above to have agreed with his reasoning at one point.

When did they invade and occupy a country based on dodgy intel?

The assesment and subsequent public release of "facts" regarding the incident in The Gulf of Tonkin, which lead to The Viet Nam war, might meet that criteria.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Actually, Intelligence officials have said that Clinton's bombings in Iraq destroyed most of the Weapons Stockpile.

Iraq's weapons and facilities, he says, had been destroyed in three phases: by allied bombardment in the 1991 Gulf War; by U.N. inspectors in the half-decade after that war; and by President Clinton's 1998 bombing campaign. (Clinton's airstrikes, by now widely forgotten, were even at the time widely dismissed as a political diversion; they took place during the weekend when the House of Representatives voted for impeachment. But according to Kay, they destroyed Iraq's remaining infrastructure for building chemical weapons.)

Straight from Bush's stooge himself Mr. Kay.

HUSSSSHHHHHH!

We don't want to fluster the hens. They feel righteous for what they've done.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The first half of your list precedes Clinton's four-day bombing action against Iraq. It nicely demonstrates the use of current, valid intelligence data to launch a focused, limited attack that successfully addressed the problem at hand. An attack, by the way, that did NOT kill some 10,000 innocent people, cost us $200 billion and counting, and make us a pariah to the rest of the world.

As for the rest of your list, I'd mostly attribute it to a combination of Bush administration deception, especially related to the willful manipulation of intelligence analysis to support a predetermined course of action, and a lack of the leadership and political backbone to stand up to a panicked populace and say, "I don't care if Bush did say you're with us or you're terrorists, we have serious questions that must be answered before we rush to invade another country based on fear and rumors."

Sounds about right.

Me too.

 

[chess9]

That's the way to characterize the Dems arguments to make them look bad.

Convinced me for sure. I'm certain 90% of the rest of Dems here are going to switch to Bush now that your artfully executed cut and paste job has been posted.

But, don't you think we should have just nuked Iraq? I mean, isn't that what all the Democrats really were saying?Ditto for Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, North Korea, China, Uganda, Somalia, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico, Canada, Massachusetts, and San Francisco?



-Robert

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: chess9
That's the way to characterize the Dems arguments to make them look bad.

Convinced me for sure. I'm certain 90% of the rest of Dems here are going to switch to Bush now that your artfully executed cut and paste job has been posted.

But, don't you think we should have just nuked Iraq? I mean, isn't that what all the Democrats really were saying?Ditto for Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, North Korea, China, Uganda, Somalia, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico, Canada, Massachusetts, and San Francisco?



-Robert

Absolutely, Nuke em all, then we'll get plenty of Oil for our SUV's and jobs back too.

Nice job on the ownage of TheGameIs21 Guys

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The first half of your list precedes Clinton's four-day bombing action against Iraq. It nicely demonstrates the use of current, valid intelligence data to launch a focused, limited attack that successfully addressed the problem at hand. An attack, by the way, that did NOT kill some 10,000 innocent people, cost us $200 billion and counting, and make us a pariah to the rest of the world.

As for the rest of your list, I'd mostly attribute it to a combination of Bush administration deception, especially related to the willful manipulation of intelligence analysis to support a predetermined course of action, and a lack of the leadership and political backbone to stand up to a panicked populace and say, "I don't care if Bush did say you're with us or you're terrorists, we have serious questions that must be answered before we rush to invade another country based on fear and rumors."

Buahahahaha
You mean the couple hundred missiles we lobbed over there? Did we by chance find out if our strikes were successful? Did we follow up to see the damage(intentional and collateral)?
What was "successfully addressed" by these preemptive attacks? He let the inspectors back in? You mean to tell me that we lobbed 300-400 missiles into Iraq so we could get inspectors back in?

We didn't "blow them all up" no matter how much you try to say we did. We just don't know - because there was NO follow-up.

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The first half of your list precedes Clinton's four-day bombing action against Iraq. It nicely demonstrates the use of current, valid intelligence data to launch a focused, limited attack that successfully addressed the problem at hand. An attack, by the way, that did NOT kill some 10,000 innocent people, cost us $200 billion and counting, and make us a pariah to the rest of the world.

As for the rest of your list, I'd mostly attribute it to a combination of Bush administration deception, especially related to the willful manipulation of intelligence analysis to support a predetermined course of action, and a lack of the leadership and political backbone to stand up to a panicked populace and say, "I don't care if Bush did say you're with us or you're terrorists, we have serious questions that must be answered before we rush to invade another country based on fear and rumors."

Buahahahaha
You mean the couple hundred missiles we lobbed over there? Did we by chance find out if our strikes were successful? Did we follow up to see the damage(intentional and collateral)?
What was "successfully addressed" by these preemptive attacks? He let the inspectors back in? You mean to tell me that we lobbed 300-400 missiles into Iraq so we could get inspectors back in?

We didn't "blow them all up" no matter how much you try to say we did. We just don't know - because there was NO follow-up.

CkG

Yup, we didn't know. Just like Bush didn't while insisting he did.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The first half of your list precedes Clinton's four-day bombing action against Iraq. It nicely demonstrates the use of current, valid intelligence data to launch a focused, limited attack that successfully addressed the problem at hand. An attack, by the way, that did NOT kill some 10,000 innocent people, cost us $200 billion and counting, and make us a pariah to the rest of the world.

As for the rest of your list, I'd mostly attribute it to a combination of Bush administration deception, especially related to the willful manipulation of intelligence analysis to support a predetermined course of action, and a lack of the leadership and political backbone to stand up to a panicked populace and say, "I don't care if Bush did say you're with us or you're terrorists, we have serious questions that must be answered before we rush to invade another country based on fear and rumors."

Buahahahaha
You mean the couple hundred missiles we lobbed over there? Did we by chance find out if our strikes were successful? Did we follow up to see the damage(intentional and collateral)?
What was "successfully addressed" by these preemptive attacks? He let the inspectors back in? You mean to tell me that we lobbed 300-400 missiles into Iraq so we could get inspectors back in?

We didn't "blow them all up" no matter how much you try to say we did. We just don't know - because there was NO follow-up.

CkG

Cad, I've refuted this before -- with you -- many times. Telling the same lies over and over still doesn't make them true, no matter how badly you want to deflect criticism of Bush-lite.

However, since you won't listen to me, let's see if you'll accept the same facts as presented by sMiLeYz in this very thread:

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Actually, Intelligence officials have said that Clinton's bombings in Iraq destroyed most of the Weapons Stockpile.

Iraq's weapons and facilities, he says, had been destroyed in three phases: by allied bombardment in the 1991 Gulf War; by U.N. inspectors in the half-decade after that war; and by President Clinton's 1998 bombing campaign. (Clinton's airstrikes, by now widely forgotten, were even at the time widely dismissed as a political diversion; they took place during the weekend when the House of Representatives voted for impeachment. But according to Kay, they destroyed Iraq's remaining infrastructure for building chemical weapons.)

Straight from Bush's stooge himself Mr. Kay.

Of course Kay only confirms what Scott Ritter told us long before the invasion, but you were too busy smearing Ritter to listen.

Re. the rest of your comment, what was "successfully addressed" was any remaining threat from Iraq. You remember that threat, right? That "uniquely urgent threat" (according to GWB) that wasn't because Clinton already eliminated it ... without killing 10,000+ innocent people or spending $200 billion. By the way, where did I say "blow them all up", and in what context? It wasn't this thread. Is this just another quote you invented for ease of diversion, or is it something real taken out of context?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The first half of your list precedes Clinton's four-day bombing action against Iraq. It nicely demonstrates the use of current, valid intelligence data to launch a focused, limited attack that successfully addressed the problem at hand. An attack, by the way, that did NOT kill some 10,000 innocent people, cost us $200 billion and counting, and make us a pariah to the rest of the world.

As for the rest of your list, I'd mostly attribute it to a combination of Bush administration deception, especially related to the willful manipulation of intelligence analysis to support a predetermined course of action, and a lack of the leadership and political backbone to stand up to a panicked populace and say, "I don't care if Bush did say you're with us or you're terrorists, we have serious questions that must be answered before we rush to invade another country based on fear and rumors."

Buahahahaha
You mean the couple hundred missiles we lobbed over there? Did we by chance find out if our strikes were successful? Did we follow up to see the damage(intentional and collateral)?
What was "successfully addressed" by these preemptive attacks? He let the inspectors back in? You mean to tell me that we lobbed 300-400 missiles into Iraq so we could get inspectors back in?

We didn't "blow them all up" no matter how much you try to say we did. We just don't know - because there was NO follow-up.

CkG

Cad, I've refuted this before -- with you -- many times. Telling the same lies over and over still doesn't make them true, no matter how badly you want to deflect criticism of Bush-lite.

However, since you won't listen to me, let's see if you'll accept the same facts as presented by sMiLeYz in this very thread:

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Actually, Intelligence officials have said that Clinton's bombings in Iraq destroyed most of the Weapons Stockpile.

Iraq's weapons and facilities, he says, had been destroyed in three phases: by allied bombardment in the 1991 Gulf War; by U.N. inspectors in the half-decade after that war; and by President Clinton's 1998 bombing campaign. (Clinton's airstrikes, by now widely forgotten, were even at the time widely dismissed as a political diversion; they took place during the weekend when the House of Representatives voted for impeachment. But according to Kay, they destroyed Iraq's remaining infrastructure for building chemical weapons.)

Straight from Bush's stooge himself Mr. Kay.

Of course Kay only confirms what Scott Ritter told us long before the invasion, but you were too busy smearing Ritter to listen.

Re. the rest of your comment, what was "successfully addressed" was any remaining threat from Iraq. You remember that threat, right? That "uniquely urgent threat" (according to GWB) that wasn't because Clinton already eliminated it ... without killing 10,000+ innocent people or spending $200 billion. By the way, where did I say "blow them all up", and in what context? It wasn't this thread. Is this just another quote you invented for ease of diversion, or is it something real taken out of context?

Bow, I've refuted this before -- with you -- many times. Telling the same lies over and over still doesn't make them true, no matter how badly you want to blame of Bush or claim we "got them all". Ritter nor Kay know what we got or didn't get because NO ONE FOLLOWED UP. Keep trying to claim we did and I will continue to call you on it. Just because YOU continue to present that argument doesn't make it true. You, sMiLeYz, nor anyone else knows what we hit with those few hundred missiles, and claiming you do is dishonest.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Bow, I've refuted this before -- with you -- many times. Telling the same lies over and over still doesn't make them true, no matter how badly you want to blame of Bush or claim we "got them all". Ritter nor Kay know what we got or didn't get because NO ONE FOLLOWED UP. Keep trying to claim we did and I will continue to call you on it. Just because YOU continue to present that argument doesn't make it true. You, sMiLeYz, nor anyone else knows what we hit with those few hundred missiles, and claiming you do is dishonest.

CkG

LOL! Keep swinging, Sir Cad. Now you're lying to yourself. Everything I said was true, and you know it.

No matter how energetically you bleat this nonsense, the simple fact is those "massive stockpiles" and "thousands of liters" and looming "mushroom cloud" are pure fiction. They do not exist, except in the minds of the Bush administration and its deluded apologists. More importantly, Iraq was NOT a threat to this country or our allies. Plain, simple, irrefutable. The Bush administration was told this by many well-informed sources, both outside and within our government. To counter these inconvenient reports, Cheney and Rumsfeld went intelligence shopping to concoct the most damning case they could to support their crusade against Iraq.