Snopes Quotes about Iraq

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by lspahn, Dec 5, 2006.

Loading...
  1. lspahn

    lspahn New Member

    Snopes.com is pretty much considered a solid source...found this....thought it was interesting, how soon we forget

    "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, 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 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 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 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 seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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 alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (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. "[W]ithout 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 has 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.


    Any thoughts on Politically convient opinions????


    IMHO of course...
     
  2. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Not all who oppose the war are Democrats. I, for example, am libertarian. I was anti-war then, and am still.

    -=Steve=-
     
  3. lspahn

    lspahn New Member

    No doubt. And the libertarians have been consistant about this. I just simply dont think the isolationism will work for us because no one has the courage to push the button when needed..BUT


    The difference between the libertarians and the democrates is the political wind does not effect the libertarians When the country was gung-ho they were still against it. I am basicly accusing the dems of political oppurtunism at the expense of soldier lives and the welfar of the country.
     
  4. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    No doubt. And the libertarians have been consistant about this. I just simply dont think the isolationism will work for us because no one has the courage to push the button when needed..

    I don't see libertarians as isolationist. We just want to send businesspeople abroad instead of soldiers, so that our nation becomes wealthier rather than poorer.

    The difference between the libertarians and the democrates is the political wind does not effect the libertarians When the country was gung-ho they were still against it. I am basicly accusing the dems of political oppurtunism at the expense of soldier lives and the welfar of the country.

    Okay, I'll buy that.

    -=Steve=-
     
  5. wannabeit

    wannabeit New Member

    After what I've read so far, I'm glad I am not a libertarian. It seemed that you guys love to blame everyone. Maybe if someone talked about how imperfect the Libertarians are, then maybe I can see the contributions (positive) the libertarians has contributed during the last decade.
     
  6. lspahn

    lspahn New Member

    How blamed anyone? Once agian looking for consitancy...

    Do you feel the statement about oppurtunism is wrong? And if so why? Please cite examples....

    Thanks
     
  7. wannabeit

    wannabeit New Member

    I don't have a problem with opportunism. If you were to say that all parties are opportunist then I can buy that. But people seemed to bagged on one political system. Instead of placing blamed and ridiculing someone else's political belief, perhaps we can focus on positive things and move forward. Why are people so preoccupied with the past when we have a lot of things that needs to be done in this present????
     
  8. MrLazy

    MrLazy New Member

    I can agree that all parties are opportunistic. I can agree that all parties have problems. I can also agree that all parties have some good ideas and some bad ideas.

    What I have a problem with is currently the Democratic party is big on blame and short on memory. As Lou has pointed out, there are plenty of Democrats that were more than willing to say that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction to fill a sound bite and those same Dems call Bush a liar.

    Democrats were also big on blaming the economy on Bush too. Problem is the Nasdaq and S&P 500 dropped almost 50% from their all time highs during 2000. Bush didn't take office until Jan. 2001.

    A few weeks back, President Clinton was being interviewed and was asked a question about his administration handling Bin Laden. He shot back at the interviewer, "What about the Cole? How come the Bush administration didn't do anything about the Cole?" Well, President Clinton, the Cole incident happened in Oct. 2000. That was on Clinton's watch. Bush wasn't President then and in fact, Al Gore had a good chance of becoming President, so why didn't the Clinton administration and Al Gore do something about the Cole?

    One other thing that I have noticed and I don't know if this is a consistent thing or not. I also don't know if it is limited to a particular party, but it seems to be.
    When elections are close, both parties threaten to sue. However, when a republican is declared the loser by a close margin, they'll usually concede night of or day after the election. Democrats seem to be less gracious losers. More of them will attempt to overturn things in court, or insist on long recounts, or try and play race cards, etc.

    I really despise both parties as they are now. I'm a registered republican, but I'm disappointed in certain things. I guess I would really be happier if politicians would be honest with us. If they would just accept when they make mistakes and not try and qualify it. I especially hate it when they say "that's what I said, but not what I meant".

    I wish we could focus on positive things too. However, it doesn't seem that either party is willing to let that happen. Part of the blame there could go to the media. The media is big on showing the bad stories and not giving much time to the good ones.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2006
  9. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Politicians on both sides of the aisle will redact history whenever it's convenient for them to do so. No surprises there.
     
  10. lspahn

    lspahn New Member

    Well, this point to a theory i have...And please its just a theory, and not a personal attack on anyone..

    Ok here goes..

    MOST liberals, I have to wonder,are full of self doubt, hence systems like welfare and affer. action (which look close to dead..YEAH) or an excuse for failure, almost like they set themselves up for failure. I wonder if they dont believe they can win on a level playing field, and hence always want the govt to step in. This explains alot of behavior. This seeming hate for people who are self accomplished. Especially the military, who embody "winners". I just never have know alot of people who got it done themselves who were quick to cry foul or complain....Only those who fail and then need an excuse..beside their own fault...



    Can any of you guys on the other side help out here? Why do dems SEEM to be gungho to sue? Except when they win of course. And is that the test...If they lose someone cheated, if they win it was fair. Pretty rich for the party who is FAMOUS for voting dead people and dogs...Mayor Daley anyone???
     
  11. lspahn

    lspahn New Member

    Very Very true...BUT


    When Clinton when after Milosovic, the Republicains supported him and this was during the monica scandel.

    My problem isnt the oppurtunism, cause it excepted, but it stays at the waters edge, and in that sense the Democrats are clearly wrong..

    But wanna is right...what about the future? They confirm Gates today, and it seemed civil..but they got to hear what they wanted to hear. I asked in the last thread what they have to offer me and I got no response from anybody....What besides higher taxes will they do for me, a self sustaining family guy who pays his bills...I dont really see anything , but I would be glad to hear...
     

Share This Page