Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    That's about the most ignorant comment I've read on these here boards.

    In case you hadn't noticed, your own country isn't exactly uniethnic, unicultural, or unisectarian.

    It would also come as a bit of a shock to our friend clulup that multi-ethnic countries can't make it and are doomed to failure as you clearly believe.

    Or is it just Arabs who are incapable of this? Muslims? Which bigotry is it?
    Given the relatively recent creation of the country of Iraq by the Brits AND the visible desire to be separate States between the Kurds and Shiites, I don't find it to be an ignorant statement.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I don't find it to be an ignorant statement.
    I expect you don't otherwise you wouldn't have made it.

    What is it about the Iraqis that makes you think them incapable of governing themselves in a federation? Perhaps at some point they might wish to separate themselves as you state. The Czechs and Slovaks managed to do so without killing each other.

    The Iraqis have now voted twice as a nation in very high numbers. That is real evidence in favor of their desire to succeed.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  3. #23  
    The right -- the decreasingly small minority of that still believes in this despicable war -- is unable to process that this horror, these lives, these maimed young people – are all their fault.

    That they, through their ignorance and arrogance -- are responsible. That they are to blame for the wasted opportunities and squandered resources that are going to deplete our country’s strength for decades.

    junior will never stand up and admit that responsibility -- he is at heart a hypocrite and a coward.

    Iraq is a catastrophe unlike any other that I can recall in america's history, in some ways worse than Viet Nam.

    Vietnam cost far more lives and was the cause of extraordinary pain and division in our country -- was the product of inexperience and naivete. It had been several generations since we’d known anti-insurgency guerrilla war (Philippines Cuba).

    Those leading our country thought that the cold war required unflinching strength to any communist challenge. They thought that our power applied sparingly would turn the tide against our enemies without much cost.

    We began to get enmeshed gradually, and the country was initially supportive. The congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution – based on what has recently been disclosed to be false intelligence. (So many echoes of today)

    There were few protests in the beginning -– no giant demonstrations.

    It was maybe two years after we became involved before our troops began to die in numbers; before draft deferment studies became a more important course than physics.

    The difference with Iraq is that people alive today remember Vietnam -– they shouted in the millions that this was a mistake, that our people would die in the thousands, that our security would be worsened, that our country would be weakened, that it would devert attention from succeeding in Afganistan -- a war nearly everyone supported.

    But those who lead this country, and were architects of the Iraq war: junior, cheney, Rove, Libby, and Wolfiwitz – avoided Viet Nam, and thereby managed to avoid learning from the mistake we made there.

    I don’t want america to fail, I DON’T want americans to die, to return maimed.

    I do want those arrogant ignorant cowards who blithely sacrificed them to be held criminally responsible if at all possible.



    Washington Post:

    Nearly two-thirds disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while barely a third approve, a new low. Six in 10 now believe the United States was wrong to invade Iraq, a seven-point increase in just over two months, with almost half the country saying they strongly believe it was wrong.

    About 3 in 4 -- 73 percent -- say there have been an unacceptable level of casualties in Iraq. More than half -- 52 percent -- say the war with Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States.
    Last edited by BARYE; 11/04/2005 at 12:49 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Iraq is a catastrophe unlike any other that I can recall in america's history, in some ways worse than Viet Nam.
    daThomas is in the clear. This is the most ignorant statement I've ever read on these here boards.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  5. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #25  
    Barye, you use way too much hyperbole to be taken seriously. "they shouted in the millions that this was a mistake". If you will look at the facts with an open mind you will find that there were few vocal opponents. Sure, lot's of folks are now saying "I knew this would happen" but look at the statements they (democratic leadership) made at the time things like, undeniable evidence Saddam has WMDs, he must be stopped, I support military action, on and on and on. The quotes have been posted here before, but you refuse to accept the facts as they are and only want to complain against the current administration, and leave all democrats unaccountable.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Barye, you use way too much hyperbole to be taken seriously. "they shouted in the millions that this was a mistake". If you will look at the facts with an open mind you will find that there were few vocal opponents. Sure, lot's of folks are now saying "I knew this would happen" but look at the statements they (democratic leadership) made at the time things like, undeniable evidence Saddam has WMDs, he must be stopped, I support military action, on and on and on. The quotes have been posted here before, but you refuse to accept the facts as they are and only want to complain against the current administration, and leave all democrats unaccountable.
    that is a fair accusation.

    I have a hard time knowing that there were many in the democratic leadership who voted for the war.

    They did it under the political duress of junior Rove and cheny -- but they did it.

    The cabal orchestrated a vote just before the elections in which they hyped the threat -- insisted that they only wanted to have congressional support to pressure Saddamm, so that war would not be needed.

    I knew that that was a lie -- I wonder why more of the congressional democrats allowed themselves to be conned.

    I guess it was the fear that with people so much in rally mode around junior, with Afganistan looking like it was a success, with memories of how badly those who voted against the first Iraq war looked -- they flinched -- and convinced themselves that that vote was the right thing to do.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    that is a fair accusation.

    I have a hard time knowing that there were many in the democratic leadership who voted for the war.

    They did it under the political duress of junior Rove and cheny -- but they did it.

    The cabal orchestrated a vote just before the elections in which they hyped the threat -- insisted that they only wanted to have congressional support to pressure Saddamm, so that war would not be needed.

    I knew that that was a lie -- I wonder why more of the congressional democrats allowed themselves to be conned.

    I guess it was the fear that with people so much in rally mode around junior, with Afganistan looking like it was a success, with memories of how badly those who voted against the first Iraq war looked -- they flinched -- and convinced themselves that that vote was the right thing to do.
    If that is true the democratic party is in big trouble. They need to find some candidates that can read, research and make their own choices. Hindsight is pretty clear, however I think that everyone (repubs and demos) looked at the infromation provided by numerous sources (not just republican sources) and said there is a valid threat that needs to be addressed in a more serious manner than is now. We all know the oil-for-food program was a joke, we know the no-fly zones were constantly being breached, the evidence made available to the UN weapons inspectors did not confirm the total destruction of WMDs as it was supposed to do. If a candidate for the next election says I voted for the war because the republicans tricked me, will you be comfortable voting for someone who looks at independent research and is not able to decide for themselves what it says?
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    If that is true the democratic party is in big trouble. They need to find some candidates that can read, research and make their own choices. Hindsight is pretty clear, however I think that everyone (repubs and demos) looked at the infromation provided by numerous sources (not just republican sources) and said there is a valid threat that needs to be addressed in a more serious manner than is now. We all know the oil-for-food program was a joke, we know the no-fly zones were constantly being breached, the evidence made available to the UN weapons inspectors did not confirm the total destruction of WMDs as it was supposed to do. If a candidate for the next election says I voted for the war because the republicans tricked me, will you be comfortable voting for someone who looks at independent research and is not able to decide for themselves what it says?

    I would almost accept a democratic yellow dog.

    (that would not include joe biden or joe leberman)

    I want the democrats to say sometime that this cabal lied us into war -- deliberately "fixed" and cherry picked intelligence to make everyone believe that Sadamm was just moments way from Nuking us. (I wish Kerry had said it during the campaign)

    I am troubled that Hillary is not moving faster in this direction (though I still support her.)
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  9. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    I would almost accept a democratic yellow dog.

    (that would not include joe biden or joe leberman)

    I want the democrats to say sometime that this cabal lied us into war -- deliberately "fixed" and cherry picked intelligence to make everyone believe that Sadamm was just moments way from Nuking us. (I wish Kerry had said it during the campaign)

    I am troubled that Hillary is not moving faster in this direction (though I still support her.)
    I would say the reason they are not saying that is simply because of the statements they made during the build-up to the war. As I have said several times, I am not republican, democrat or any party, I try to sift through the lies and deceit and vote for whoever convinced me that they are the better of the candidates. Yes, I have some hot-button issues, but they alone will not decide my vote.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    this cabal lied us into war
    It's long past time that you put up or shut up on this.

    Please cite one example of a lie that was told to get us involved in a war with Iraq.

    Just one will do.

    FYI - lies are not things we say that are later shown to not be what we thought. Lies are the deliberate telling of untruths.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    It's long past time that you put up or shut up on this.
    You're quite right. That's why the Senate had to be shut down this week.
  12. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You're quite right. That's why the Senate had to be shut down this week.
    And, the outcome was what?
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    And, the outcome was what?
    "Senate leaders agreed to give a bipartisan group until Nov. 14 to report back on the status of an ongoing Intelligence Committee investigation into pre-war intelligence."
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    It's long past time that you put up or shut up on this.

    Please cite one example of a lie that was told to get us involved in a war with Iraq.

    Just one will do.

    FYI - lies are not things we say that are later shown to not be what we thought. Lies are the deliberate telling of untruths.
    the war was largely sold on the basis of WMD --

    the predicate for that thesis was the Niger yellow cake lie.

    They were told by both the Italians (the source for the origianl intel) and Amb. Wilson that it was a lie.

    Those 16 words are your smoking gun of a lie.

    so important to protect that it was worth outing a CIA agent
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  15. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    "Senate leaders agreed to give a bipartisan group until Nov. 14 to report back on the status of an ongoing Intelligence Committee investigation into pre-war intelligence."
    Which is how much different than the original?
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Which is how much different than the original?
    There was no activity before.
  17. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    There was no activity before.
    No activity except

    Roberts' committee produced a 511-page report in 2004 on flaws in an Iraq intelligence estimate assembled by the country's top analysts in October 2002, and he promised a second phase would look at issues that couldn't be finished in the first year of work.

    The committee has worked on the second phase of the review, Roberts said, but it has not finished. He blamed Democrats for the delays and said his staff had informed Democratic counterparts on Monday that the committee hoped to complete the second phase next week.

    "Now we have this ... stunt 24 hours after their staff was informed that we were moving to closure next week," a clearly angry Roberts told reporters. "If that's not politics, I'm not standing here."

    Original plan by Roberts was to complete the second phase by Nov 11th, now they have till Nov 14th. I see the difference
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    No activity except

    Roberts' committee produced a 511-page report in 2004 on flaws in an Iraq intelligence estimate assembled by the country's top analysts in October 2002, and he promised a second phase would look at issues that couldn't be finished in the first year of work.

    The committee has worked on the second phase of the review, Roberts said, but it has not finished. He blamed Democrats for the delays and said his staff had informed Democratic counterparts on Monday that the committee hoped to complete the second phase next week.

    "Now we have this ... stunt 24 hours after their staff was informed that we were moving to closure next week," a clearly angry Roberts told reporters. "If that's not politics, I'm not standing here."

    Original plan by Roberts was to complete the second phase by Nov 11th, now they have till Nov 14th. I see the difference
    Regardless, that was supposedly said. After this week, the public will be focusing on it more and expecting delivery of a true investigation.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    the war was largely sold on the basis of WMD --

    the predicate for that thesis was the Niger yellow cake lie.

    They were told by both the Italians (the source for the origianl intel) and Amb. Wilson that it was a lie.

    Those 16 words are your smoking gun of a lie.

    so important to protect that it was worth outing a CIA agent
    Complete and utter bull.

    The intel was British. They stand by it to this day.

    Try again.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  20. #40  
    First of all, I do not belong to any party. I do lean to the right, but I am pretty central. I tend to look at the person, the situation, rather than the party. I find it sad when the right says the Left are Evil because they are Liberals. I find it disheartening when the Left throw the book at Reps calling for jail or resignations the first day of an accusation, when a Dem has done the exact same thing but of course he was unjustly persecuted when he was held accountable.

    I don't think that any Dem in his right (or should I say left ) mind would wish a soldier to die. But I do think....and this is only a personal observation....that they tend to get themselves in positions like they did during last election. They tend to appear (again I said appear) to promote it in their talking points when something goes bad for America (i.e. high unemployment, recession, etc...) because it is then bad for Bush which would be good for them. Which is fine to recognize items that we need to address, but then I have observed that some Dems are very reluctant or flat out refuse to recognize when things go good America (i.e. low unemployment, strong economy, etc...) which would then appear to be good for Bush and then bad for the Dems. I even had several Libs last year express their concern of this image brought on be various Dem statements and actions at the time.

    I do think that there are Dems that hate....I mean to the point of obsession......hate Bush to the core. And they do rejoice in any failure by Bush, but I don't think in the death of one of our soldiers. But I have seen how that image could be projected. I have seen some of the left (and not necesarily on this board) make it a point on a daily basis to show that another member of our Armed Forces died in Iraq as proof Bush is failing and it is ALL Bush's fault.....while never mentioning or even unwilling to recognize when presented with the good that was accomplished that day in Iraq at the same time.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    I would almost accept a democratic yellow dog.

    (that would not include joe biden or joe leberman)

    I want the democrats to say sometime that this cabal lied us into war -- deliberately "fixed" and cherry picked intelligence to make everyone believe that Sadamm was just moments way from Nuking us. (I wish Kerry had said it during the campaign)

    I am troubled that Hillary is not moving faster in this direction (though I still support her.)
    Man....Joe is one of the Dems at the moment that I would seriously look at if he was on the ticket, would have seriously considered voting for last election.

    As for Hillary, I think it would be hard for her to say much as she said the following after reviewing the same intel:
    "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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    There was no activity before.

    Regardless, that was supposedly said. After this week, the public will be focusing on it more and expecting delivery of a true investigation.
    I wouldn't agree with that. They were schedule to meet with the very same discussion just 3 business days later. I agree with you that their main motivation was to simply get attention which would grab headlines, and getting the attention off of Alito was probably a bonus as well.

    What I found to be really funny was when the investigation committee compiled a list of 250 Iraq comments from Reps and 100 from Dems, removed their names, scrambled the order of the quotes, and asked the Senate to question any statement on the list they wanted so they could cross referrence it with any intel that was available at the time the statement was made to determine if the statement was accurate according to the intel, regardless of whether the intel later after the fact proved to be false. The Reps were okay with it, but the Dems refused to do it. If the Dems truly wanted to find the truth, and feel they were always right on the Iraq issue from the start, why would they refuse?

    Here is a timeline:
    Work Under Way

    Although GOP tempers are still flaring, Roberts explained that months of work led up to this week's confusion.

    Phase one oversight involved the Intelligence Committee's probe into the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate issued prior to the lead-up to the Iraq war. The 511-page report that resulted from the phase one investigation was presented to the Sept. 11 commission convened to review the quality of U.S. intelligence prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. It issued its report in July 2004.

    Roberts said phase two of the investigation grew as a result of the phase one work. The second part of the probe began on Feb. 12, 2004. Roberts said the primary purpose of the current investigation is into whether flawed intelligence supported the lead up to the war.

    "In other words, the public statements made in the administration and the public statements made by public officials, whether they be in the Congress, whether they be in the administration ... were those public statements really backed up by intelligence, or were they backed up by flawed intelligence?" he said Tuesday.

    Republican Intelligence Committee staffers told FOX News that to compare the intelligence gathered from phase one to the statements made by officials in the lead-up to the war, they collected more than 250 comments by Republican officials. Then they took statements from 100 Democratic officials and took the names off of all the comments.

    Republican staffers said they were then ready to present the statements to Democrats in May 2005, but the minority members on the committee objected to the anonymous nature of the comments. That backed up the discussion, the committee's GOP staff director said.

    Roberts said he wanted to present a truly impartial look at statements that were made and what intelligence was available to those officials at the time they made their assessments. The chairman said from what they know now, there is no "there there."

    But Democrats insist that they want to look at Republican administration statements to see if the intelligence assessments were used for political advantage and manipulated to justify war.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174262,00.html



    Quote Originally Posted by Cardio
    I would say the reason they are not saying that is simply because of the statements they made during the build-up to the war.
    I was interested in this as I really do try to look at what someone knew when they made the decision...not based on what we know now in perfect 20/20 hindsight, so here are some of the Dem comments I found with a quick a google. Looking at some of the dates, I noticed that many of these are nearly verbatum with what Bush said at the exact same time the the Dems are claiming he lied to the American people:

    "[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

    "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

    "Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

    "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

    "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

    "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

    "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

    "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

    "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

    "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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

    "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

    "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

    "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

    "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

    "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- **** Gephardt in September of 2002

    "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

    "Saddam Hussein is not the


    only deranged dict
    ator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mas
    s destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

    "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

    "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. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

    "(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,

    murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

    "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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

    "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

    "Over th
    e years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspe
    ctors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

    "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

    "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

    "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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    "Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    "Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 11/06/2005 at 01:15 AM.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions