Keith Olbermann

[WildernessBride]

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” Edward Abbey

“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” Mark Twain


"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” Howard Zinn

“You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it.” Malcolm X

 

[WheatThins]

Wow. Now I KNOW why I don't read these threads.

Wheat Thins

 

[LisaR]

Who???? You've got a whole thread of Bush devotees.

Am I the only one who reads threads like these and worries about who will win the presidency in November? It seems like everyone I talk to in real life is so grossly appalled by Bush and yet, message board after message board seems to be laden with people that would vote him in for another 4 years, if possible. Well, I guess it really is possible with McCain in the running.

 

[charlie,nj]

You still think Bush has a clue about anything, or what he says has any value at all? You are certainly living up to your picture.

Well it really seems to have had value for the DEM’s. They are still talking about it.

Appeasement, literally: calming, reconciling, acquiring peace by way of concessions or gifts (the verb 'to pay' also goes back to the Latin 'pax' = peace). Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war.

Exactly how do the DEM’s define “appeasement” ? Is it something other then what Obama mentions below in his NY Times April 2007 interview?

Pelosi goes to Syria against the State Departments advice to talk Peace. Obama says he will meet with Iran, North Korea and Syria in the NY Times interview (below). The interview also mentions that Hillary thinks that would be a bad idea. Funny didn’t she defend Obama yesterday against President Bush’s comments?


Talk about DEM BS !!!!

PS – I love the White House response to Obama…

“I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you -- that is not always true and it is not true in this case.”



PS – check out what the man says about total troop withdrawal from Iraq in 16 months..and his “residual force” Hmmmm

November 2, 2007

If Elected ...
Obama Envisions New Iran Approach

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and JEFF ZELENY

CHICAGO, Oct. 31 — Senator Barack Obama says he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.

In an hourlong interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama made clear that forging a new relationship with Iran would be a major element of a broad effort to stabilize Iraq as he executed a speedy timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops.

Mr. Obama said that Iran had been “acting irresponsibly” by supporting Shiite militant groups in Iraq. He also emphasized that Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program and its support for “terrorist activities” were serious concerns.

But he asserted that Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations.

Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.

“We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior.”

In his Democratic presidential bid, Mr. Obama has vigorously sought to distinguish himself on foreign policy from his rivals, particularly Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, by asserting that he would sit down for diplomatic meetings with countries like Iran, North Korea and Syria with no preconditions.

The suggestion, which emerged as a flash point in the campaign, has prompted Mrs. Clinton to question whether such an approach would amount to little more than a propaganda victory for the United States’ adversaries and to question the experience of Mr. Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois. Other Democrats, in turn, have criticized Mrs. Clinton for an approach to Iran they call too hawkish, including a vote for a nonbinding resolution describing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran as a terrorist organization.

Mr. Obama’s willingness to conduct talks at the highest level with Iran also differs significantly from the Bush administration’s approach.

The administration has authorized Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to discuss Iraq with Iranian officials. But the White House has also said it will not engage in high-level talks on other issues unless Iran first suspends its program to enrich uranium. Nor has the Bush administration advertised in detail the possible rewards for a change of Iranian behavior.

Through most of the interview, Mr. Obama spoke without referring to notes. At one point near the end of the session, he leaned forward in his chair and looked at a yellow legal pad on the table in front of him, which listed points where he believed he and Mrs. Clinton differ on how to go forward in Iraq.

“You don’t want to look backwards, but obviously our general view about this mission as a whole has been very different,” Mr. Obama said. “She missed the strategic interests that should have dictated whether we went to Iraq in the first place or not.”

Mrs. Clinton has said that after carrying out major troop withdrawals she would leave a residual force in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, battle other terrorist groups, train the Iraqi Army and deter Iranian intervention.

Mr. Obama has also talked about keeping a limited force in Iraq after withdrawing American combat units at the rate of one or two per month. But he insisted in the interview that the mission of his residual force would be more limited than that posited by Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Obama said, for example, that the part of the residual force assigned to counterterrorism might be based outside Iraq. He also emphasized that the residual force would not have the mission of deterring Iranian involvement in Iraq.

He said he would commit to training Iraqi security forces only if the Iraqi government engaged in political reconciliation and did not employ the Iraqi Army and the police for sectarian purposes. In any event, he said, American trainers would not be attached with Iraqi units that go in harm’s way.

“The trainers are going to have to be provided with missions that don’t put them in vulnerable situations,” he said. “Part of what my goal is is that the trainers are not constantly embedded in combat operations.”

Whether such a limited force could effectively influence events in Iraq is an important question. Keeping the part of the force assigned to counterterrorism outside the country raises the issue of whether it could respond in a timely way and without the benefit of the sort of intelligence that is gathered by forces that regularly interact with Iraqi civilians. Nor is it clear how, without keeping some combat forces in the country, the American military might rush to the aid of any trainers if they came under attack.

Mr. Obama acknowledged in the interview that there were “legitimate questions” as to how his concept of a residual force might work, and said he would adjust it if necessary after discussions with senior military leaders.

“As commander in chief, I’m not going to leave trainers unprotected,” he said. “In our counterterrorism efforts, I’m not going to have a situation where our efforts can’t be successful. If the commanders tell me that they need X, Y and Z, in order to accomplish the very narrow mission that I’ve laid out, then I will take that into consideration.”

For all Mr. Obama’s efforts to emphasize an approach that calls for minimal military involvement in Iraq, his plan is in one respect more ambitious than Mrs. Clinton’s. While Mr. Obama said he hoped to withdraw all American combat forces within 16 months of taking office, his plan states that American and allied troops should be prepared to return to Iraq and protect civilians if there were genocidal attacks.

(let’s see I would say then that the American troops would be returning …on 16 months and one day)(good plan Barry!!)

“I do not anticipate that happening, because I think we can execute our withdrawal in an effective way,” he said. “What I am saying is that I as president am obviously going to be mindful of the possibility of humanitarian disaster, and if that were to occur, I am not ruling out that we wouldn’t take steps in concert with other nations — even if it was short term — to ensure that a wholesale disaster did not take place.”

Mr. Obama argued that it was “too speculative” to say if the United States would undertake such action unilaterally or only if allied nations chose to participate.

Other aspects of his policy for the Middle East also remain unclear. Mr. Obama declined to say if he would take military action if Iran did not abandon its presumed nuclear weapons program or if he would settle for a strategy of deterring and containing a nuclear-armed Iran.

“My decision making, with respect to military options versus diplomatic options, a containment strategy versus a strike strategy, is going to be informed by how is that going to impact not just Iran,” he said, “but how is that going to impact the stability of the region and how’s that going to impact our long-term security interests.”

Mr. Obama, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, visited Iraq in January 2006. Asked if that was his last visit, given how much events on the ground have changed since then, he jumped in before the question was finished, saying, “Given how important this is, why haven’t I gone back?”

“I’ll be honest with you,” he said. “Part of it is that my schedule is such that the trips would be one or two days and would be centered around the Green Zone.”

He added: “I suspect we will be going back. It probably won’t be before Iowa, realistically speaking.” The Iowa caucuses are scheduled for Jan. 3.

(Mrs. Clinton has been to Iraq three times, her aides said.)

Mr. Obama has implored voters to consider his judgment in foreign policy, reminding audiences at political rallies and in television commercials that he spoke out against the Iraq war from the beginning, two years before he was elected to the Senate. That judgment, he said, would be carried over to selecting people to fill his administration.

He said his views were shaped by his foreign policy advisers, including Richard Danzig, who was Navy secretary under President Bill Clinton; Anthony Lake, a national security adviser in the Clinton administration; Susan E. Rice, an assistant secretary of state for African affairs under Mr. Clinton; Scott Gration, a retired Air Force major general; and Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, now retired, a former chief of staff of the Air Force.

Asked whom he would appoint as defense secretary or to important national security positions, Mr. Obama said he would consider “the best person, regardless of party.”

.

 

[FSUMARCHIEF]

Okay, so I lied. I came back. Just to say, I'm guessing all of you forgot about your wonderful Democrat Party leaders who said the following things when President Clinton was in office, and then again following 9/11. As I said, using the same intelligence President Bush had, they all said the following. Or did you forget?

THE TRUTH REVEALED

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

President Bill Clinton > February 4, 1998“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."

Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998 "The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

President Bill Clinton > February 17, 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 > February 17, 1998 "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998"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."

National Security Advisor Sandy Berger > February 18, 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"

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > February 23, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

Bill Richardson (D-NM) > May 29, 1998 "The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."

Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats > October 9th, 1998"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US 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."

Al Gore > December 16, 1998 "f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."

Nancy Pelosi - House Minority Leader > December 16, 1998Saddam 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 processes."

President Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998 "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) > September 30, 1999 "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Letter to President Bush signed by Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Congressman Harold Ford (D-TN), Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) and others > December 6, 2001"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."

Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002 Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > February 24, 2002"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."Joe Biden > August 4, 2002"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) > August 4, 2002 "This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."
> August 4, 2002 "I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain." > August 4, 2002 "We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability." > August 4, 2002 "First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) > August 4, 2002 "I'm inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others."

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) > August 25, 2002 "[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, and I expect that he is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. So at some point, we might have to act precipitously."

Jane Harman > August 27, 2002 "I certainly think (Hussein's) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good."

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) > September 14, 2002 "I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) > September 19, 2002"We begin with a 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, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."> September 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."

Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002 "(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) > September 27, 2002"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." > 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."

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) > October 3, 2002"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. 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."

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > October 9, 2002"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002 "With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) > October 10, 2002"There was 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 that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Senatorc Chuck Schumer (D-NY) > October 10, 2002 "It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) > October 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, 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."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > October 10, 2002"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."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002 "Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA) > October 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."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > January 7, 2003 "Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) > January 22, 2003 "I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > January 23, 2003“Without question, we 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. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. 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” > January 31, 2003 "If you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

United Nations Inspections Reports

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003"One bottleneck for Tabun production is the availability of precursors. Iraq may have retained up to 191 tonnes of NaCN [potassium cyanide] and up to 140 tonnes of DMA.HCl [dimethylamine hydrochloride]."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003"In total, at least 300 to 350 R-400 and R-400A bombs remained unaccounted for by UNSCOM."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003"A document submitted by Iraq in February 2003 outlining the production of Clostridium perfringens [gas gangrene], did not add any detail to previous Iraqi declarations. No evidence to support the declared destruction of the agent was provided."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003"Based on its estimate of the amounts of various types of media unaccounted for, UNSCOM estimated that the quantities of additional undeclared agent that potentially could have been produced were: 3,000 - 11,000 litres of botulinum toxin, 6,000 - 16,000 litres of anthrax, up to 5,600 litres of Clostridium perfringens, and a significant quantity of an unknown bacterial agent."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003"There are 550 Mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for since 1998. The mustard filled shells account for a couple of tonnes of agent while the aerial bombs account for approximately 70 tons."


Just thought I'd remind you. Now that they're trying to win an election, they've changed their tune. And have a whole lot of lemmings humming right along. It's all politics people. Has old Keith Olberman ever addressed these quotes from the Democrat leadership? Hmmm? Has he?

Of course not. For obvious reasons. Having seen the same intelligence the President saw, they all agreed. Until now. How convenient?!

Blessings!
Mark

 

[ChrisFL]

Of course not. For obvious reasons. Having seen the same intelligence the President saw, they all agreed. Until now. How convenient?!

Blessings!
Mark

Well no one expected the invasion to go so horribly wrong...we have the #1 military in the world and yet Bush & Co's failed planning left us in a quagmire that we still won't recover from for a long time. This IS Bush's Vietnam

BTW, Obama has never changed his tune, he's always said the same thing, he was against the war from the start, as he is now

 

[LuvDuke]

Okay, so I lied. I came back. Just to say, I'm guessing all of you forgot about your wonderful Democrat Party leaders who said the following things when President Clinton was in office, and then again following 9/11. As I said, using the same intelligence President Bush had, they all said the following. Or did you forget?

THE TRUTH REVEALED

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

President Bill Clinton > February 4, 1998“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."

Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998 "The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

President Bill Clinton > February 17, 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 > February 17, 1998 "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998"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."

National Security Advisor Sandy Berger > February 18, 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"

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > February 23, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

Bill Richardson (D-NM) > May 29, 1998 "The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."

Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats > October 9th, 1998"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US 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."

Al Gore > December 16, 1998 "f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."

Nancy Pelosi - House Minority Leader > December 16, 1998Saddam 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 processes."

President Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998 "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) > September 30, 1999 "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Letter to President Bush signed by Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Congressman Harold Ford (D-TN), Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) and others > December 6, 2001"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."

Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002 Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > February 24, 2002"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."Joe Biden > August 4, 2002"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) > August 4, 2002 "This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."
> August 4, 2002 "I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain." > August 4, 2002 "We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability." > August 4, 2002 "First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) > August 4, 2002 "I'm inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others."

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) > August 25, 2002 "[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, and I expect that he is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. So at some point, we might have to act precipitously."

Jane Harman > August 27, 2002 "I certainly think (Hussein's) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good."

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) > September 14, 2002 "I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) > September 19, 2002"We begin with a 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, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."> September 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."

Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002 "(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) > September 27, 2002"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." > 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."

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) > October 3, 2002"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. 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."

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > October 9, 2002"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002 "With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) > October 10, 2002"There was 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 that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Senatorc Chuck Schumer (D-NY) > October 10, 2002 "It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) > October 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, 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."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > October 10, 2002"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."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002 "Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA) > October 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."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > January 7, 2003 "Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) > January 22, 2003 "I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > January 23, 2003“Without question, we 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. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. 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” > January 31, 2003 "If you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

United Nations Inspections Reports

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003"One bottleneck for Tabun production is the availability of precursors. Iraq may have retained up to 191 tonnes of NaCN [potassium cyanide] and up to 140 tonnes of DMA.HCl [dimethylamine hydrochloride]."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003"In total, at least 300 to 350 R-400 and R-400A bombs remained unaccounted for by UNSCOM."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003"A document submitted by Iraq in February 2003 outlining the production of Clostridium perfringens [gas gangrene], did not add any detail to previous Iraqi declarations. No evidence to support the declared destruction of the agent was provided."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003"Based on its estimate of the amounts of various types of media unaccounted for, UNSCOM estimated that the quantities of additional undeclared agent that potentially could have been produced were: 3,000 - 11,000 litres of botulinum toxin, 6,000 - 16,000 litres of anthrax, up to 5,600 litres of Clostridium perfringens, and a significant quantity of an unknown bacterial agent."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003"There are 550 Mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for since 1998. The mustard filled shells account for a couple of tonnes of agent while the aerial bombs account for approximately 70 tons."


Just thought I'd remind you. Now that they're trying to win an election, they've changed their tune. And have a whole lot of lemmings humming right along. It's all politics people. Has old Keith Olberman ever addressed these quotes from the Democrat leadership? Hmmm? Has he?

Of course not. For obvious reasons. Having seen the same intelligence the President saw, they all agreed. Until now. How convenient?!

Blessings!
Mark

Very impressive, but no matter how you slice this one, it was Bush who ordered the invasion of Iraq. Others may've seen the same intelligence, but it was spin by the Bush operatives that led to the invasion.

This is Bush's war and Bush's fiasco. The Bush war has cost 4000+ Americans their lives, 30,000+ Americans their bodies, and the American over $500,000,000,000 (that's billion with a "B".)

OTOH, Bush gave up is golf game .............. maybe.

 

[LuvDuke]

Am I the only one who reads threads like these and worries about who will win the presidency in November? It seems like everyone I talk to in real life is so grossly appalled by Bush and yet, message board after message board seems to be laden with people that would vote him in for another 4 years, if possible. Well, I guess it really is possible with McCain in the running.

I don't worry about it at all. The Bush supporters are in the minority and out of the mainstream no matter how many of them post on message boards.

 

[FSUMARCHIEF]

Very impressive, but no matter how you slice this one, it was Bush who ordered the invasion of Iraq. Others may've seen the same intelligence, but it was spin by the Bush operatives that led to the invasion.

This is Bush's war and Bush's fiasco. The Bush war has cost 4000+ Americans their lives, 30,000+ Americans their bodies, and the American over $500,000,000,000 (that's billion with a "B".)

OTOH, Bush gave up is golf game .............. maybe.

LuvDuke, I don't know you. But did you read the quotes? There was no spin there. Democrat leadership saw the inteligence and came to the same conclusion. I guess they were spinning when they said the very same things. Did you read the link I sent that shares the transcript of Bill Clinton's address to the nation after he attacked Iraq? If your argument is true, then Clinton must have been spinning too?

Come on. The Bush spin thing is wrong. Don't believe me? Just go back and reread the quotes. They all thought it. And yeah, Bush ordered the invasion. That's the job of the President as Commander in Chief.

Pardon me if I sound a little smart alecky. I'm tired and it happens when I get tired. Been doing tornado cleanup all day.


Blessings!
Mark

 

[FSUMARCHIEF]

One more just so I can hit 1200 posts. Should I really be proud of that? LOL

Blessings!
Mark

 

["Got Disney"]

news commentators always say the right things when they say what we want to hear and they are terrible when they dont. Whats roses to ones ears are poison to another's.... just wanted to add this to the I hate him posters and the I love him posters.

Carry on and have a fun Friday night

 

[KathyTX]

Because this conversation is not civil and respectful, it's closed.