• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 6 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 60

Topic: What did the democrats say?

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    What did the democrats say?

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    Source! (links to all the sources)


    Quote Originally Posted by variety of democrats
    "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 | Source

    "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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

    "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
    - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

    "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 | Source

    "[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.
    - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

    "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 | Source

    "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 | Source

    "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 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 | Source

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

    "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 | Source

    "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 | Source

    "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 | Source

    "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 | Source

    "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 | Source

    "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 | Source

    "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 | Source

    "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 | Source
    Got to love the hypocracy.
    Regards,
    Brian W. Ralston

    Check out my new FREE iPhone App! Click Here!

  2. #2

    Re: What did the democrats say?

    No doubt! I agree with you.

    But that doesn't excuse this administrations faults. And I know you're not saying that but just want to be clear on that.

    Crap is crap no matter where it is on your shoe.

  3. #3

    Re: What did the democrats say?

    Brian,
    You have a point. The democratic party is also part of our faulty oil reliant system. They are also to blame for Americas hypocritical, anti-democratic foreign policy. But many of those quotes are recent, and were made after Bush made his dishonest report to congress about WMD in Iraq. Democrats have now "flip flopped" the other way because it has become apparent that their decisions were based on the lies of Bush.

  4. #4

    Re: What did the democrats say?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Phoenix
    Brian,
    You have a point. The democratic party is also part of our faulty oil reliant system. They are also to blame for Americas hypocritical, anti-democratic foreign policy. But many of those quotes are recent, and were made after Bush made his dishonest report to congress about WMD in Iraq. Democrats have now "flip flopped" the other way because it has become apparent that their decisions were based on the lies of Bush.
    Right...Bush certainly had Clinton, Gore, Pelosi, Albright, etc fooled back in the Clinton Administration!

    The real problem here is that most politicians, regardless of party, did see Saddam as a threat, though most were not prepared to act upon the threat. I don't understand why Kerry and the other dems are saying (and you're buying) that it's all Bush's fault. Bush, Cheney, Kerry, and Edwards all agreed on the war....why say differently now? Kerry will get the liberal and democrat vote even if he did support the war and I only see this as a flaw in his election strategy.

  5. #5

    Re: What did the democrats say?

    Here's one of my favorites, arguing that the president "should" have acted on Iraq "sooner" ..as in as soon as he got into office, because he was always a threat, and having 9/11 only complicated things. It also shows, that the Clinton admin, passed to Bush the day he got into office, that Iraq was high on the list of threats and needed a high sense of urgency..(as the Bush admin claimed that others disputed), and blames Bush for not heeding that early on in his admin strongly enough (ie.that Bush should have acted on that right away). It also blames Clinton for not taking actions to set this up so Bush could have taken office and acted backed by this sense of urgency.


    I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.

    The Senate worked to urge action in early 1998. I joined with Senator McCain, Senator Hagel, and other Senators, in a resolution urging the President to ``take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program.'' That was 1998 that we thought we needed a more serious response.

    Later in the year, Congress enacted legislation declaring Iraq in material, unacceptable breach of its disarmament obligations and urging the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance. In fact, had we done so, President Bush could well have taken his office, backed by our sense of urgency about holding Saddam Hussein accountable and, with an international United Nations, backed a multilateral stamp of approval record on a clear demand for the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's Iraq . We could have had that and we would not be here debating this today. But the administration missed an opportunity 2 years ago and particularly a year ago after September 11. They regrettably, and even clumsily, complicated their own case. The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable.


    Who ..could this possibly be????

    John Kerry, oct 2002 in his senate speech before he voted "yes" to authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

  6. #6

    Re: What did the democrats say?

    Oh, I forgot, you'll note also, he suggests the president "also" missed an opportunity to deal with Iraq...right after 9/11 when there was the will and unity to do so.

  7. #7

    Re: What did the democrats say?

    Quote Originally Posted by wes37
    Right...Bush certainly had Clinton, Gore, Pelosi, Albright, etc fooled back in the Clinton Administration!

    The real problem here is that most politicians, regardless of party, did see Saddam as a threat, though most were not prepared to act upon the threat. I don't understand why Kerry and the other dems are saying (and you're buying) that it's all Bush's fault. Bush, Cheney, Kerry, and Edwards all agreed on the war....why say differently now? Kerry will get the liberal and democrat vote even if he did support the war and I only see this as a flaw in his election strategy.

    Actually they are against the war. They were pro-war because of the case made by Bush. Now, they are not coming out and clearly denouncing the war and promising to pull the troops, out of fear of a political backlash from some moderates.

  8. #8

    Re: What did the democrats say?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Phoenix
    Actually they are against the war. They were pro-war because of the case made by Bush.
    They are against the war now because it is the "political thing" to do for a democrat to attempt to win the office of the presidency.

    They were pro-war because of the case made by the intelligence community not only in the U.S., but from other countries who were convinced he had WMDs as well. Inclluding Britain, Russia, France, Spain....and the King of Jordan, Egypt and Isreal. The fact that WMDs were not found does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Saddam did not have them either. With so many people around the world (a lot of which had better on the ground intelligence than we did) convinced of Saddam's WMDs, I believe it is more reasonable to conclude that the WMDs were transported out of the country before the invasion to another soverign state nearby (like Syria) or buried deep in the desert somewhere.
    Regards,
    Brian W. Ralston

    Check out my new FREE iPhone App! Click Here!

  9. #9

    Re: What did the democrats say?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Phoenix
    Actually they are against the war. They were pro-war because of the case made by Bush. Now, they are not coming out and clearly denouncing the war and promising to pull the troops, out of fear of a political backlash from some moderates.
    Changing policy for poll numbers is exactly why they are failures. Leadership is doing what's right despite public opinion.

  10. #10

    Re: What did the democrats say?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Phoenix
    Actually they are against the war. They were pro-war because of the case made by Bush. Now, they are not coming out and clearly denouncing the war and promising to pull the troops, out of fear of a political backlash from some moderates.
    Those first 4 or 5 quotes were from the 90's, and they came from Democrats. The quotes reveal the state of diplomacy before Bush. I'm not disagreeing with your assessment, but it goes to show that there were many concerns about Saddam, none of them revolving around Haliburton, or the honor of the Bush family, or from a swell of war mongering.

    Saddam had been belligerent ever since the first war. He was testing the will of the international community on a daily basis. Is 8 years not enough time to play the diplomacy card? How long should the world have put up with Saddam's diplomatic defiance? Throughout those 8 years it had become increasingly obvious that Saddam was just buying time. So if the international community had taken an active interest in Saddam, which they had, which Saddam had met with obstructiveness, then where do you draw the line? Those quotes seem to indicate America's progress of dimplomatic solutions. It wasn't going very well and they were close to the end of the line.

    Either way, I think it's safe to say that the world, as an international community, was going to interfere with Saddam's rule, one war or another, it was just a matter of time.
    Michael Peter

    If music be the food of love...
    play on

    William Shakespeare

    homepage

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 6 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •