A few interesting quotes made by Dems

[M1A2U2]

Democrats and Iraq


Posted on 01/10/2004 6:01:43 PM PST by CIBGUY


------ "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 [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, '98

"We 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 St ate, Nov. 10, '99

"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 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, 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. 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 (Now who is lying???)

"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 ****e 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

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES AND THIS WAS ALL PLANNED AT THE RANCH IN CRAWFORD, TEXAS

[George W. Bush]

I was going to vote Libertarian (yeah I know, wasted vote right) however I'm gonna vote for Junior now.

I'm also going to make sure everyone I know and their families vote for Bush. We have to keep this guy in power or some mighty bad **** is going to happen to Americans. I guarantee you that.

Four more years and then we can have a CONSERVATIVE candidate to pit against a labor union-lovin' democrat and see who wins. None of this moderate crap :)

[usa320]

I agree. As soon as a democrate is elected, bad things will happen. Massive withdrawls of troops from forward locations. A cease of counter terrorism operations, base closures, cutbacks, ect.

Dean already made it clear if he wins he is pulling our men outta iraq, leaving hte country in turmoil.

until of course some cockbag launches a scud full of sarin at Seattle or blows up a dirty bomb in washington. Then the American people will wake up again and realize that taking a diplomatic approach to terrorism and megalomaniacs isnt an approach at all.

People forget to easily.

It shouldnt take another 9-11 for people to realize there are madmen who are hellbent on killing each and everyone of us. Its the utopian thought of being absolutely safe while we drink starbucks, drive SUV's and fatten up at McD's that got us in the position in the first place, that and the inaction of the last regime. We should have hit Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and Iran after the cole bombing, but we did nothing. 18 of our soldiers dead, and we did nothing. Attacking the vessel of another nations navy is an act of war, and we did nothing to return the favor.

[Tane Angle]

If you want to vote for Bush, that's your business. However, I can tell you right now that our CT capability has been seriously degraded by the war in Iraq. Forget the reasons for going in there; the fact is that retention rates are too far down. Not of the young guys, but of the old SF salts. No matter what party is in office, that doesn't bode well with me.

Believe me, I am no fan of Clinton, but like I've said before, we haven't had a president worth his suit since JFK. At least JFK had the right idea with the White Stars and such.

Also, no President elected would pull our troops out of Iraq. Even if someone was set on it, Congress wouldn't go for it, and at the end of the day, it's Congress' call. It sure seems like we pulled out of Afghanistan, leaving the country in turmoil, though. 9,000 men is a nominal number, I hate to say it. There are some decent threads on here about that, particularly one from the point of view of a SF soldier.

Also, Scuds? From Mexico or Canada?

And again, I'm still not convinced that we're taking an all that undiplomatic approach to terrorism. We sure as heck aren't stopping recruitment.

After that bombing, we should have done a lot of things, including making sincere efforts to stop recruitment. But why not after the 1998 Embassy attacks? Or the question I still haven't figured out: Why not two decades ago after our COS, Bill Buckley, was kidnapped, among Americans and westerners? Why not after the US diplomatic mission in Lebanon was hit repeatedly, and our Marine barracks-and French paratroop barracks-bombed? Oh right, we did, we hit Grenada. By the way, we can't blame that on a Democrat president.

One more thing: We lost a heck of a lot more men then 18. Matt Rierson for starters, but 101st boys, the crew of AC130 Jockey-14, and too many more. One would be hard pressed to find someone with more admiration and respect for the 18 brave men who gave their lives over those two days than myself. However, let's not forget everyone else. Rierson was just as brave as anyone else, and I think he would have traded spaces with any of his men, including Shughart, Gordon, or Durant, given the chance. I dare say that so would the crew of Jockey-14., and everyone else.

usa320, I sincerely hope that it doesn’t sound like I’m picking on you, because I’m not. As always, I apologize sincerely in advance if I miswrote and offend anyone in anyway; that was of course not my intent. Have a good one all, take care, and just some thoughts…

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well, you're not hearing Dems talk that way now, because right now it doesn't suit their purposes.

Internationally, Dems are seen as weak, and incapable of decisive action do to their constituency. Witness the ineffectual action of Carter & Clinton vs. the middle east. We have gained a great deal of capital with our military action abroad & the militant Islamists now fear us. This is what works with them. But they also know that one of our weaknesses is the fact that our entire national policy can reverse itself every 4 years. And they're waiting for it.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

We have to keep this guy in power or some mighty bad **** is going to happen to Americans. I guarantee you that.

As far as the bad guys are concerned they really do not care who is in power, Al Q are a loose knit organization with no real home base Bush can launch as many strikes at suspected terrorist bases overseas and round up as many operatives as possible and acts of terror will still be committed on US soil. We invade Iraq and Afghanistan and yet we give Saudi Arabia Sponsor Of Terror™ a free pass, US and UK politicians and journalists from both the right and the left protest about Russia's actions in Chechnya against jihadists.