Monday, August 01, 2005

"Clinton Kerry Graham Daschle Levin Berger Rockefeller Byrd Albright Gore Kennedy Pelosi -- Lied and Kids Died!"

"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

"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

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"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

"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. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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

"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

"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

"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

"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

Leadership is standing behind a decision even when the going gets tough. Any wonder why Democrats found themselves out of power in 2004 Presidential election?

**Quotes compiled on Glenn Beck's site. Used without permission. I don't think he'll mind.


Blogger Bohemian Like You said...

This comment placed here for the same purpose that a bartender puts a couple of his own dollars in the tip jar at the beginning of his shift. Comments beget comments.

8/01/2005 07:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Ray B. said...

Politicians say the darnedest things.

Cheney in 1992 on Iraq: The U.S. did not want to get "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

[But 9/11 happened and Cheney and the Bush admin. decided that they would divert the war on Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism by invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.]

Vice President Richard "big Dick" Cheney, made the following remarks in August of 1992 when he was secretary of defense before an audience at the Discovery Institute, nearly 18 months after U.S. forces routed the Iraqi army and liberated Kuwait. This was his defense at the time for not going into Iraq and taking down the Saddam Hussein government.

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

"And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

And! -

"All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques," Cheney said.

"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."

"Now what kind of government are you going to establish? Is it going to be a Kurdish government, or a Shi'ia government, or a Sunni government, or maybe a government based on the old Baathist Party, or some mixture thereof? You will have, I think by that time, lost the support of the Arab coalition that was so crucial to our operations over there," he said.

The end result, Cheney said in 1992, would be a messy, dangerous situation requiring a long-term presence by U.S. forces.

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today, we'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home," Cheney said, 18 months after the war ended.

Politicians say the darnedest things.

8/02/2005 08:38:00 AM  
Blogger Bohemian Like You said...

You make a good point Ray. I saw General Schwartzkopf speak in 1992 and he said the same things - almost verbatim.

9/11 however, changed everything. With a more organized al-Qaeda and increased cooperation among our enemies in that region, we no longer had the luxury of hoping bad things didn't happen to us. And, no lawsuits or single cruise missiles would.

Do you think that most politicians or Americans would have supported rebuilding Europe or Japan before Pearl Harbor?

8/02/2005 09:28:00 AM  
Blogger Bohemian Like You said...

On that note, do you think Europe should have acted pre-emptively against Hitler?

8/02/2005 12:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Ray B. said...

Do I think that most politicians or Americans would have supported rebuilding Europe or Japan before Pearl Harbor?

Please explain -- I ain't gettin' the question. What u mean?

8/02/2005 12:01:00 PM  
Blogger Bohemian Like You said...

I'm simply stressing that waiting for a threat to materialize and/or second guessing it after is unwise.

8/02/2005 12:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Ray B. said...

Yes, but sometimes a rush to judgement can lead us into a big mess, i.e. Iraq.

8/02/2005 01:14:00 PM  
Blogger Rockel said...

i.e. the guy shot in the back of the head 8 times in London.

8/05/2005 05:08:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home