| NY Mag. | 0 | |
| Wash Wire | 0 | |
| NYT | 0 | |
| WaPo | Calif. insurer’s rate increases draw attention of federal government |
0 |
| Red State | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Spinsational:
"We were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values."
-Obama, explaining recent Democrat losses, 1/20/10
Velvet Lair- The sexiness of winning the battle of good versus evil January 26, 2010
- Ever wonder why? January 12, 2010
- The decision to bench Peyton Manning: Right or wrong? December 28, 2009
- Is my dad turning into a metrosexual? November 24, 2009
- My “Things To Do For Christmas” list November 23, 2009
Dems on Iraq – a quote recap
I should note that these were buried in this post on page 3, but I wanted to post them separate from that as well for anyone who wanted a quick list of quotes to refer to when talking to others about this.
For your reading pleasure:
“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 Bill 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 Bill 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
“[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: — Democratic Senators 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 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 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, Dec 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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e 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
Prior Toldjah So posts:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
46 Responses to “Dems on Iraq – a quote recap”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
ST We should stop picking on the poor Dems, they cannot help it.
Well, while you’re at it, Sis, let’s see some Republican quotes from the same time…specifically 1998 when Clinton made a bold move to contain Saddam:
“I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time, both the timing and the policy are subject to question.”
_Trent Lott
“The suspicion some people have about the president’s motives in this attack is itself a powerful argument for impeachment, after months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons.”
_Dick Armey
“Bombs Away — Save Impeachment for Another Day?”
_Rep. Gerald Soloman (R-NY)
“Clinton said that American policy was that if Saddam took certain threatening actions, we would use force. Bush and Cheney said that Saddam might take threatening actions, so they had to invade. [Emphases in original.]
That’s quite a different threat assessment. Clinton never suggested an invasion and occupation to deal with Saddam; his policy was to contain him with threats and judicious use of force when he provoked us. And apparently it worked. There were, after all, no weapons of mass destruction and he had perpetrated none of the other actions that would have led to a need for further use of force as of 2002.”
LINK
And don’t whine that “everybody KNEW he had weapons…” there were a lot of weapons inspectors who said just the opposite. Saddam KNEW Bush wanted to invade, and started dismanteling his weapons as soon as he was elected (sorta).
It now appears that early on, when Bush called on Saddam to leave Iraq and go into exile, Saddam was open to it- and Kickass43 turned a deaf ear.
The only “whining” going on at the present is from you, trying to wiggle out of the statements that MANY in the Democratic party made with regards to Iraq and their weapons capabilities. Your inserting Republican quotes is nothing more than a red herring. Republican quotes on *supporting* the Iraq war are ALREADY on the table!
Zorro,
Clinton only bombed a Iraqi intelligence building at night and killed a janitor. Some bold action. Where was Clinton after the Cole bombing?
You know, you cherry picked a few out of context statements, but the true context was quesioning Clinton’s commitment to do something substantive, not symbolic and pathetic.
Unfortunately, symbolic and pathetic sums up the only reaction of the Left to the war waged by the Islamofascists.
Sis, there was no “Iraq War” in 1998, and Clinton’s action was in direct response to an action by Saddam:
“Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq’s capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
[snip]
Faced with Saddam’s latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam’s actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.
Eight Arab nations — Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman — warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.
When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily.”
…a little different than Bush’s unilateral “screw you!” to the UN.
You’re heart wants things to be right and just, but you play awfully loose and reckless with facts.
The über-quote from Clinton’s 1998 adress to the Nation:
“In the century we’re leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we’ll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.”
The problem you good people have with Bill Clinton is his personal indescresion – which I agree with you about- with one blowjob, he erased all the fantastic things he achieved as president, and set the stage for Bush. But your hatred of him clouds your judgement of his method- he was purposely measured. The airstrikes in 1998 were “a shot across the bow”. He wanted to remove Saddam, as did Bush 41, but he and the elder Bush both knew that invasion and occupation would be disaster, as we have seen.
Bush has sowed more chaos and fear than Saddam ever could have hoped for.
Zorro,
Um, 17 ignored Security Council resolutions are not Bush saying, “Screw You!”, but Saddam. We had the mandate from the UN, something you are spinning and playing “Big Brother” with to justify yourself.
Zorro,
Flying your French Surrender flag, are you? You don’t want to see the progress in Iraq because your blind hatred of Bush and Blind worship of Clinton won’t let you. You are like the MSM holed up in a hotel writing about Iraq or Katrina. Either way you can’t see the truth and report and repeat lies.
Someone’s blind, but it ain’t Zorro. Bush started this war; not the aforementioned Democrats. BUSH. He bears sole responsibility.
Zorro wrote, “with one b—j–”. Read the Starr Report. There was a lengthy lengthy period of many trists including times where people like Yasar Arafat were waiting for the tardy Bill as he was occupied. It wasn’t just private. It was during business hours and it affected his work and the lies were purjery during a civil rights case.
PUTTING THAT ASIDE (as you brought it up again).
You argue as if Bush alone got us to war and now you are mad because what?:
1) You are mad because he lied – when he didn’t – he said the same things as everyone else
2) You are mad because he acted against everyone elses input – when he didn’t – he acted after the Senate with a large majority authorized the use of force as the U.N. did (which the U.N. didn’t do for Yugoslavia and Haiti and the bombing of Sudan and Iraq by Bill Clinton)
3) You are mad because of what? These 3 guesses are purely guesses. I don’t know what you think. I can only say that Bush didn’t act alone. He simply stated the same things that everyone else was saying and a LOT of people agreed with Bush that it was time to make sure that Saddam wasn’t in power anymore because he had been in communications with terrorists and had been helping them out. This is undisputable. NOBODY said that Iraq or Saddam was responsible for 9/11. We and Bush has only been saying that Saddam had the means and desire to help out terrorists and was in communications with them.
If that turned out to be incorrect that Saddam didn’t have the means then he misled the entire intelligence community all around the world.
You guys lie saying that equates to Bush lying.
You will be soundly defeated for these tactics as they are purely illogical and most people can see straight through it.
UN Weapons inspectors were in Iraq, stating nothing was there, when Bush kicked them out and attacked. Sounds suspiciously like everyone WASN’T saying the same thing as Bush. But hey, at 35%, you’re all getting desperate.
Waiting for my post to get pulled.
Necromancer
I don’t pull posts based solely on their sheer ridiculousness, so you don’t have to worry.
Ooohh she responds, and doesn’t pull me for once.
Well then, let’s hear your well-reasoned Red-State response: Hanse Blix (remember him?) said they weren’t finding anything, Bush said get out ‘cus we’re attacking. What’s your response, besides calling my post ridiculous?
Waiting with bells on my big East Coast Liberal Jewish (formerly Hoosier Christian, but we all improve over time) Toes,
Necromancer
There is hope yet, Edited. Please address posters by their login names. –ST:
Zogby poll: Majority of Americans support considing impeachment over Iraq, 51-45 percent
A new poll of likely voters by Zogby International has found that a majority of Americans support Congress considering the impeachment of President Bush if he “did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq
LINK
“For once”? I have never pulled a post of yours unless it was just now when I marked as spam several posts by mistake – which I noted here with apologies.
What do you keep mentioning you’re a Jew? Is that supposed to signify something to me?
Zorro: and this is news exactly why? How many times has this poll been taken in the past?
Necromancer wrote, “Hanse Blix (remember him?) said they weren’t finding anything”
Yep. He was saying that since the inspections started and was kicked out in 1998 and reinserted by Bush in 2001.
Nothing new. Inspectors couldn’t find anything yet the intelligence and politicians were all saying that Saddam had the weapons.
You can just say that you disagreed with the war. To say that Bush lied (when you can’t pinpoint what the lie was) doesn’t make your case at all.
it’s (that question) never been conducted by Zogby (that I’m aware of), and it’s the first time the results are over 50% in favor in a mainstream poll.
I lost three posts today; couldn’t help but wonder.
Because a few weeks ago you went to all the trouble to describe how it would help “East Coast Liberal Jews” to study some Southern Christians. You then professed that the Jews having horns and hooves myth doesn’t still exist in our nation’s lovely middle states (it does) and sarcastically noted that they could observe people speaking in tongues (I have).
Basically, I found your post offensive, and intend to keep reminding you until you apologize, and perhaps visit a Synagogue to learn something yourself.
Yours,
Necromancer
Q: 2032 dead, and countless Iraqis, how does a whole nation atone?
A: Ask Germany
Zorro,
As with all polls cited by the Left, including the MSM, they aren’t news, nor are they significant when they have skewed demographics, and slanted, leading questions.
Can’t you libs be honest for one post?
“I lost three posts today; couldn’t help but wonder.”
Asking first would have been the right thing to do.
“Because a few weeks ago you went to all the trouble to describe how it would help “East Coast Liberal Jews” to study some Southern Christians. You then professed that the Jews having horns and hooves myth doesn’t still exist in our nation’s lovely middle states (it does) and sarcastically noted that they could observe people speaking in tongues (I have).”
That is a bald faced lie. I have never posted such things.
“Basically, I found your post offensive, and intend to keep reminding you until you apologize, and perhaps visit a Synagogue to learn something yourself.”
Goodbye.
Necromancer,
To answer your question, by staying the course and helping the Iraqis form their own Democracy. Not the dictatorship you on the left love. You all wanted Saddam left in power. Why? To kill more people? I know, just as long as it isn’t American Liberal Democrats, who Saddam killed is fine with you.
Sister,
Have you ever heard a good explanation why lefties like Necromancer have to personally attack with lies, IE. Practice the politics of personal destruction, when they aren’t winning?
Denial in it’s most pure essence:
Zorro,
As with all polls cited by the Left, including the MSM, they aren’t news, nor are they significant when they have skewed demographics, and slanted, leading questions.
Can’t you libs be honest for one post?
Comment by PCD @ 11/4/2005 – 1:27 pm
Zorro,
Projection is the purest form of denial. You can’t see yourself doing what you protest in others.
Now, tell us how you think the polls aren’t biased, and “Because” is not an answer.
Zorro,
If someone says you beat your wife and you deny it (because you don’t) and then someone says back to you “Denial in it’s most pure essence”… how does that add to the conversation?
What would you like for us to do? Just agree with you that Bush lied?
It is as simple as this. You disagreed with going to war. To go one step further and accuse the people who supported the war of lying only brings back the FACTS that Kerry, Kennedy, Albright, Gore, Clinton all said the same things as Bush.
To which your response is something about denial. Is that a value add to the discussion to you?
It would be great if you could point out the lie. Which statement was the lie? How was that statement any different than anyone elses?
Baklava,
Because Zorro is in denial about what the Democrats said. He’s got to spin, lie, and deceive to keep his Bush hate alive and thriving.
You guys (girls?) just don’t get it…the poll is not asking people whether they think Bush lied or not. The poll asks whether they would support his impeachment, if Congress finds that he did.
In other words, a new majority supports harry Reid’s effort “to get to the bottom of it”. Of course, as expected, the Republicans killed it regardless. And that really has me confused…if Bush acted appropriately, then there should be no problem with “part II” of the investigation as promised by Pat Roberts, et al.
Continuing to kill the investigation, the poll shows, is working against Bush. Oh, as an aside, I thought that it was interesting that 46% of people who identified themselves as “born again” supported impeachment as stated above.
Baklava,
Don’t you understand?? It is not possible for a good liberal to actually discuss a point, they must deflect onto some tangent that is just off the mark of the discussion. They learned this from Bill Clinton, he was a master at it. The man who debated the definition of Is to get out of answering a question. It is a very bad debate technique, and gets rather tiresome. – Lorica
Yep. I don’t think Zorro read this story that ST posted Reid’s Stunt Designed to Blunt The Upcoming Report
Which has this in it, ““Our work on public statements has long since been completed by the Committee’s staff and I attempted to present it to our members in a Committee business meeting back on May 17, 2005. All that needs to be done now is for members to look at the statements, look at the intelligence and decide whether the statements were substantiated by the intelligence available at the time.
“At the May 17 meeting, I made a number of attempts to begin evaluating nearly 500 statements made by Administration officials and Members of Congress, over 300 of which were provided by the Democrats. My friends across the aisle wouldn’t even let me get past the first statement. When they learned that I didn’t intend to identify the speakers in an effort to remove partisan bias, they wanted to talk about everything but public statements.”
Zorro,
In your denial, you don’t get it. We don’t geek for polls where the demographics are skewed to get the desired, anti-Bush result. Also, you refuse to give us to URL so we can see how slanted the question is. You afraid we’ll shread you once again?
Included is this editorial, “On Monday, Chairman Roberts informed the Democratic staff that he was going to conclude the work on the second phase of the report. ”
“Reid was forced into the position of having to confront that he and his fellow members had exaggerated pre-war intelligence with public statements or, having to give a blanket seal of approval to all the Administration’s statements. And we know what he did 24 hours later.”
Yet Zorro makes this inaccurate accusation, “Of course, as expected, the Republicans killed it regardless”.
It’s OK Zorro. I once was duped also. I was a liberal in 1991. Now I’m a centrist/conservative. You can too accept that the mainstream media or others have been lying to you.
And who signed the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 ???
Riiiiiiggghhhtttttt.
Paper Tiger Clinton.
Fat Tone,
Yep. It was new Clinton Policy of regime change in Iraq. Regime change with a few cruise missiles (which didn’t work) !
Exactly, Fat Tone.
- Today I sat and watched Babs Boxer aver that “[It] doesn’t matter what the Democrats or Congress or the rest of the major intelligence agencies throughtout the world were saying…. the blame for the war lays at the feet of the President and the administration”. Last week this same fierce defender of diametric pronouncements was screeming that “[nobody] was listening to the words of the Democrats in trying to get to the bottom of Plamegate”. Apparently the only time that the things Democrats say mean anything is when it convieniently supports whatever brain-dead anti-American “cause” they happen to be supporting this week.
Notice the use of the word “blame”. This is an intentionally device to move the ball down the field, and make it an accepted given that the war was wrong in the minds of the electorate and then all they have to do is assign blame, at the same time of course disavowing any personal responsibilty. Talk about manipulation. Naive’ at the worst and totally transparent at the best. Good luck to the tin-foil crowd.
As for polls, maybe I should run a poll asking the American electorate if they think Kerry should be a sitting Senator, owing to His “possible” dis-honorable” discharge. This is the typical spin garbage polls that helped sink the Dems swiftboat in the form of the Pew “exit” polls, trying to manipulate last minute voters. Will they ever learn? Hopefully not. The more of this Marxist “ends justifies the means” idiocy they practice, the deeper they dig the hole.
- Big Bang
“And don’t whine that “everybody KNEW he had weapons…” there were a lot of weapons inspectors who said just the opposite.”
There were also lots of people who said he was a containable threat. Usually our rationality was dissmissed as, basically, treason by self-rightous winguts.
“Nothing new. Inspectors couldn’t find anything yet the intelligence and politicians were all saying that Saddam had the weapons.”
And who was right? The people actually looking for weapons, rather than those looking for saber rattling.
“And who signed the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 ???”
Can’t people understand the difference between having enough confidence in your intelligence to sign the iraq liberation act and having enough confidence in it to engage in a poorly planned invasion?
I’ve figured you out, shortz! Enjoy this last post … I asked you to step away for a bit because your posts stop making any sense and you were deliberately antagonizing people beyond all reason. I see that still hasn’t changed and you’re here in yet one of your latest manifestations. What does this make? The third or fourth? I remember “Sam” and “Wayne” – then “shortz”. Now “h. garner”. You are a laugh a minute! –ST
Sis:
My blog doesn’t support trackbacks (due to my pitiful computer skills), but your article is referenced in A low-risk strategy? on my website. I hope that you approve.
Thanks for the link, Dana – you wrote a good post there (one of many)
Who started the war? Who committed US troops to Iraq indefinitely?
I’d like an actual answer.
Who started the war- Saddam
Who committed US troops to Iraq indefinitely- Our government
Norah,
If you weren’t so biased and arrogant you might just recall that the Gulf War never ended. Do a little fact check, please.