September 18, 2019, 12:36:16 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Who Said What With Regard to Iraq  (Read 4246 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Anna
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 18150



« on: February 01, 2007, 03:20:47 PM »

Where on earth could Bush have gotten the idea to invade Iraq?  We have members of Congress who had the same intelligence information as Bush and yet now claim that he some how mislead them.  What utter Bullsh*t!

Here is a brief and partial record of what they said on the record before, during and after the beginning of the Iraqi war.

Oh, and it's even from Snopes.com to spare the claims that this is not true.

Please pay particular attention to statements made by the Clinton duo and others now running for President in 2008 who are lying about what they said at the time.  It's all about garnering votes for 2008 as these people couldn't care less about Iraq, our troops, National Security or anything else..  Power, that's where it's at for them.  And mostly the power to raise taxes and install their socialist agenda.

And never lose sight of the fact that it was George Tenet, Clinton appointee and head of the CIA who said the WMD were a "slam dunk" (his exact words) to be found.  

-------------------------------------------------
Claim:   Quotes reproduce statements made by Democratic leaders about Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Status:   True.

Example:   [Collected on the Internet, 2003]


"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.

NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!
 

Origins:   All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrade[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

In the section below where we highlight these quotes, we've tried to provide sufficient surrounding material to make clear the context in which the quotes were offered as well as include links to the full text from which they were derived wherever possible.

In February 1998, politicians debated the Clinton administration's plans to launch air attacks against Iraq in an effort to coerce Saddam Hussein into cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors. As the Washington Post noted at the time:

Foreign leaders and diplomats may be urging restraint on the Clinton administration in the showdown with Iraq, but a growing chorus at home is calling for stronger measures than the air attacks currently being planned, with the objective of bringing down President Saddam Hussein.

Prominent members of the foreign policy establishment and some leading members of Congress say they are convinced that air attacks aimed at coercing the Iraqis into cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors would not succeed, and would result in too narrow a victory even if they did.

Instead, they argue, the United States should go beyond the objective of curtailing Iraqi weapons programs and adopt a far-reaching strategy aimed at replacing the Baghdad regime. Although they are far from consensus on what that strategy should be, a few openly advocate the possible use of U.S. ground forces, a much greater commitment than the options being pursued by the administration.

Many supporters of a more forceful strategy are conservative Republicans and longtime defense hard-liners, such as Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and former Pentagon official Richard L. Armitage. But they also include former representative Stephen J. Solarz (N.Y.), a liberal Democrat who with former Pentagon official Richard Perle is circulating a letter in Congress and foreign policy circles seeking bipartisan support for a more ambitious policy.

In addition to a crushing bombing campaign or the possibility of ground troops, some advocates of tougher measures are suggesting seeking Iraq's expulsion from the United Nations, indicting Saddam Hussein as a war criminal, or blockading the port of Basra to halt illicit oil exports — an action that would infuriate Iran, which shares the Shatt al Arab waterway with Iraq.

Such moves, if made unilaterally, would almost certainly draw the ire of most of the United States's U.N. partners and frame the crisis even more starkly as a conflict between Washington and Baghdad. But public opinion polls may indicate support for such a route. A Los Angeles Times poll published on Monday showed that by 68 percent to 24 percent, Americans favor airstrikes provided they are designed to remove Saddam Hussein from power, not just force him to accept the commands of the U.N. Security Council.1
That same article also reported a statement made by President Clinton the previous day (4 February 1998):

Yesterday, Clinton reiterated that he would prefer a "diplomatic solution" to the standoff with Iraq but added, "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." Clinton met with Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, just back from a trip to Europe and several Arab countries to outline the U.S. position, and is to discuss Iraq with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who arrived in Washington yesterday.1
On 17 February 1998, President Clinton delivered a speech at the Pentagon. Excerpts from that speech include the following comments:

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution . . .

But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or admonishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. . . .

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. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.2
On 18 February 1998, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright appeared along with Defense Secretary William Cohen and White House National Security Adviser Sandy Berger at an internationally televised "town meeting" at Ohio State University. Protesters shouted from the stands throughout the meeting, and Secretary Albright attempted to quiet them by inviting some of them down to the floor to pose questions to her directly. As the Columbus Dispatch reported:

Few actually got the opportunity, but one — Jon Strange, a substitute teacher in Columbus — eventually took the microphone.

He repeatedly challenged Albright on whether Clinton policy is consistent or fair — attacking Saddam while acting favorably to American allies charged with atrocities against their own people, such as Indonesia and Turkey.

Albright said the United States had expressed its concerns in all of the occasions Strange mentioned. "What we ought to be thinking about is how to deal with Saddam Hussein," she added.

"You're not answering my question, Madam Albright!" Strange shouted, causing the secretary to momentarily back from the lectern.

At that point, Woodruff followed his question by asking why Iraq was branded an outlaw nation for manufacturing chemical and biological weapons that other nations also possess.

"It is a question of whether there is a proclivity to use them," Albright said. "Saddam Hussein is a repeat offender."

Many who attended yesterday's town meeting, while supportive of the nation's position on Iraq, said they are uncertain whether a military attack is the proper response.

Before the forum, Rob Aiken, a North Side resident and student at Ohio State, said he wanted to know what other options had been considered.

"I don't think killing a lot of folks will change a regime," he said.

Leandra Kennedy, a political science major from Philadelphia, said her biggest concern is that an attack has not received congressional approval.

"Saddam needs to comply," she said. "But I'm not sure about the way we're going about it, not taking into consideration how it will affect the international community in the long run."

Calling Saddam a bully who has terrorized his Middle East neighbors and tortured his own people, the officials said the administration's aim is to reduce his capacity to manufacture and deliver weapons of mass destruction.

"I am absolutely convinced that we could accomplish our mission," Berger said.

"The risks that the leader of a rogue state can use biological or chemical weapons on us or our allies is the greatest security risk we face," Albright said.3
During that same meeting National Security Adviser Sandy Berger also spoke about how to make Saddam Hussein comply with United Nations weapons inspectors:

Berger won strong applause when he insisted Washington is still hoping for a peaceful way to persuade Saddam to give United Nations inspectors free access to suspected weapons sites. But Berger re-used a warning delivered Tuesday by President Bill Clinton: "The only answer to aggression and outlaw behaviour is firmness. . . He (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."4
On 6 October 1998, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, addressed that committee at a hearing on the subject of worldwide threats facing the U.S. His comments on Iraq included mention of a letter to President Clinton which he and other senators were circulating:

As the Chairman has indicated, the situation in Iraq also poses a threat to international peace and security. Once again, Saddam Hussein has halted cooperation with the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Without intrusive inspections, we will not be able to ensure that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are destroyed in accordance with U.N. Security Council resolutions. Without those inspections, the Iraqi people will continue to suffer as a result of international economic sanctions.

And that is why, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Hutchison, I am circulating among our Senate colleagues a letter to President Clinton, urging him, in consultation with Congress, consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take effective actions, including if appropriate, the use of air strikes, to respond to the Iraqi threat.
(President Clinton did undertake the action urged in this statement a few months later by ordering the aforementioned Operation Desert Fox airstrikes.)

On 16 December 1998, Nancy Pelosi, a Congressional representative from California and a member of the House Intelligence Committee, issued a statement concerning a U.S.-led military strike against Iraq:

As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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.

The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly, those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of U.S. troops participating in the current action.

I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is, unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program. While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a lasting solution through diplomatic means.
(In this statement Rep. Pelosi was not urging that action be taken against Iraq in order to destroy its WMD technology; she was expressing support for attacks that had already begun with that purpose as their stated objective.)

On 10 November 1999, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright addressed another open meeting, this one held at the Chicago Hilton and Towers. Challenged to defend the Clinton administration's support of an economic and trade embargo against Iraq, Secretary Albright responded:

If you remember in 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded another country, he plagued it, he set fire to it, and he decided that he could control the region. Before that, he had gassed his own people.

Saddam Hussein had been acquiring weapons of mass destruction. We carried out, with the help of an alliance, a war in which we put Saddam Hussein back into his box. The United Nations voted on a set of resolutions which demanded Saddam Hussein live up to his obligations and get rid of weapons of mass destruction.

The United Nations Security Council imposed a set of sanctions on Saddam Hussein until he did that. It also established an organization that is set up to monitor whether Hussein had gotten rid of his weapons of mass destruction.

There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies.
In December 2001, nine members of Congress (a group which included both Democrats and Republicans) wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to step up support for the internal Iraqi opposition seeking to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Included in that letter was the following paragraph:

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.
Unless the version reproduced on the Department of State's web site is in error, however, Senator Bob Graham of Florida was not one of the signatories to that letter.

On 19 September 2002, Senator Carl Levin — by then Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee — addressed a committee hearing on U.S. policy on Iraq. His introductory remarks included the following:

The Armed Services Committee meets this afternoon to continue our hearings on U.S. policy toward Iraq. The purpose of these hearings is to give the Administration an opportunity to present its position on Iraq, and to allow this Committee to examine the Administration's proposal with Administration witnesses and experts outside of the government.

We welcome Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers to the Committee. Next week the Committee will hear from former senior military commanders on Monday and from former national security officials on Wednesday.

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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
On 23 September 2002, former Vice-President Al Gore addressed the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco on the subject of Iraq and the war on terrorism. Among the comments he offered there were the following:

Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

We have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist groups. However, if Iraq came to resemble Afghanistan — with no central authority but instead local and regional warlords with porous borders and infiltrating members of Al Qaeda than these widely dispersed supplies of weapons of mass destruction might well come into the hands of terrorist groups.

If we end the war in Iraq the way we ended the war in Afghanistan, we could easily be worse off than we are today. When Secretary Rumsfield was asked recently about what our responsibility for restabilizing Iraq would be in an aftermath of an invasion, he said, "That's for the Iraqis to come together and decide."

[ . . .]

What is a potentially even more serious consequence of this push to begin a new war as quickly as possible is the damage it can do not just to America’s prospects to winning the war against terrorism but to America’s prospects for continuing the historic leadership we began providing to the world 57 years ago, right here in this city by the bay.

[ . . .]

Nevertheless, Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint.
On 27 September 2002, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts delivered a speech to the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. An excerpt from that speech includes the following statements:

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.

In public hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, CIA Director George Tenet described Iraq as a threat but not as a proliferator, saying that Saddam Hussein — and I quote — "is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War." That is unacceptable, but it is also possible that it could be stopped short of war.
In October 2002, as the U.S. Senate debated Joint Resolution 46 authorizing President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia delivered remarks regarding his belief that the "rush to war" was "ignoring the U.S. Constitution" and that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to the United States. Among his remarks were the following statements:

The Senate is rushing to vote on whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. Why is war being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort? Why is Congress being pressured to act now, as of today, 33 days before a general election when a third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives are in the final, highly politicized, weeks of election campaigns? As recently as Tuesday (Oct. 1), the President said he had not yet made up his mind about whether to go to war with Iraq. And yet Congress is being exhorted to give the President open-ended authority now, to exercise whenever he pleases, in the event that he decides to invade Iraq. Why is Congress elbowing past the President to authorize a military campaign that the President may or may not even decide to pursue? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability. It is now October of 2002. Four years have gone by in which neither this administration nor the previous one felt compelled to invade Iraq to protect against the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. Until today. Until 33 days until election day. Now we are being told that we must act immediately, before adjournment and before the elections. Why the rush?

Yes, we had September 11. But we must not make the mistake of looking at the resolution before us as just another offshoot of the war on terror. We know who was behind the September 11 attacks on the United States. We know it was Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network. We have dealt with al Qaeda and with the Taliban government that sheltered it — we have routed them from Afghanistan and we are continuing to pursue them in hiding.

So where does Iraq enter the equation? No one in the Administration has been able to produce any solid evidence linking Iraq to the September 11 attack. Iraq had biological and chemical weapons long before September 11. We knew it then, and we know it now. Iraq has been an enemy of the United States for more than a decade. If Saddam Hussein is such an imminent threat to the United States, why hasn't he attacked us already? The fact that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States does not, de facto, mean that Saddam Hussein is now in a lock and load position and is readying an attack on the United States. In truth, there is nothing in the deluge of Administration rhetoric over Iraq that is of such moment that it would preclude the Senate from setting its own timetable and taking the time for a thorough and informed discussion of this crucial issue.
During that same debate, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts also made a speech from the Senate floor, which included the following statements:

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days — to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent — and I emphasize "imminent" — threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia also delivered a floor speech on the Iraq resolution:

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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

When Saddam Hussein obtains nuclear capabilities, the constraints he feels will diminish dramatically, and the risk to America’s homeland, as well as to America’s allies, will increase even more dramatically. Our existing policies to contain or counter Saddam will become irrelevant.

Americans will return to a situation like that we faced in the Cold War, waking each morning knowing we are at risk from nuclear blackmail by a dictatorship that has declared itself to be our enemy. Only, back then, our communist foes were a rational and predictable bureaucracy; this time, our nuclear foe would be an unpredictable and often irrational individual, a dictator who has demonstrated that he is prepared to violate international law and initiate unprovoked attacks when he feels it serves his purposes to do so.

The global community — in the form of the United Nations — has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn’t just a future threat. Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.

And he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly.

We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability. Rebuilding that capability has been a higher priority for Saddam than the welfare of his own people — and he has ill-will toward America.

I am forced to conclude, on all the evidence, that Saddam poses a significant risk.
During the simultaneous debate on the Iraq resolution in the House of Representatives, Congressman Henry Waxman of California issued a statement on a possible war with Iraq:

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.

And now, time has run out. It has been four long years since the last UN weapons inspectors were effectively ejected from Iraq because of Saddam’s willful noncompliance with an effective inspection regime.

What Saddam has done in the interim is not known for certain - but there is every evidence, from the dossier prepared by the Prime Minister of Britain, to President Bush’s speech at the United Nations, that Saddam has rebuilt substantial chemical and biological weapons stocks, and that he is determined to obtain the means necessary to produce nuclear weapons. He has ballistic missiles, and more are on order. He traffics with other evil people in this world, intent on harming the United States, Israel, other nations in the Middle East, and our friends across the globe.
Senator Hillary Clinton of New York also spoke on the issue of the Iraq resolution:

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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Making a speech at Georgetown University on 23 January 2003, during the build-up to the war with Iraq, Senator John Kerry said:

Second, 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, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.
Last updated:   2 October 2003  
 
The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Logged

PERSONA NON GRATA

All posts reflect my opinion only and are not shared by all forum members nor intended as statement of facts.  I am doing the best I can with the information available.

Murder & Crime on Aruba Summary http://tinyurl.com/2nus7c
Anna
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 18150



« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2007, 03:33:20 PM »

President Kennedy's inaugural address best expressed the American outlook.

"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."


Compare this statesman with the buffoons in congress now.  First they supported the war in Iraq until it morphed into something they don't seem to be able to understand.  Then they lied about supporting it in the first place.  Then they whined that Bush did not have enough troops there to do the job.  So when Bush proposes a surge, the are vehemently opposed to it.

They bemoaned the lack of adequate equipment in Iraq for the troops and then their first action when seizing congress is to cut funding.  We heard endless accounts of the lack of body armor for our troops in battle but when the time comes to provide it, instead they threaten to pull the entire rug out from under our military while under fire by refusing to fund troops actually in battle.

And now Bush some way or other tricked them?  I don't think so and don't buy that for one minute.  But even if this were true, the last person who should be sitting in Congress is one so utterly stupid and lazy as to refuse to do their own investigation into any situation.

Too bad there is not a constitutional provision for the en mass recall of an entire Congress.  That is one change I would support but I do not support the one under way to undermine the separation of powers clauses by this Congress attempting to usurp from the Executive Branch those regarding the conduct of war.

Regardless of what they might think, they are NOT Congressmen-in-Chief of anything.

.
Logged

PERSONA NON GRATA

All posts reflect my opinion only and are not shared by all forum members nor intended as statement of facts.  I am doing the best I can with the information available.

Murder & Crime on Aruba Summary http://tinyurl.com/2nus7c
pdh3
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3020



« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2007, 04:24:44 PM »

Republicans and Democrats alike have much to be ashamed of regarding Iraq. They all bear responsibility for what transpired over there, in one way or another, and for the lack of support here at home. Even Bush admitted to mistakes with his plan for Iraq.

I think those that now oppose the war should think about the effect their words are having on the situation, and how those words affect our military right now. The soldiers don't get to wait until the elections to find out how things turned out.
Logged

What's done in the dark will always come to light.
Anna
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 18150



« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2007, 06:09:18 PM »

pdh3,
Ah, but not according to our new Congress!  Only Bush alone bears total blame for this morphing into something other than what it started out being.  Why not blame the insurgents and terrorists who are causing all the problems?  Why lie about their previous positions held, especially by the Clintons who had more information than Bush did upon his taking office?

Because there are no votes to be gotten from that, of course.  Gotta spin and twist with every word because there is a Presidential Election coming up in 2008.

This is not about concern for troops, Iraq, national security, conflict in the Middle East, foreign policy or anything other than getting votes in the next election.

Shame on them all!  And I think contrary to your POV that we have much to be proud about in Iraq.  Doing the right thing is always a source of comfort even if the results are not all they should be or that could reasonably be expected from the effort given.

Just my opinion.

.

.
Logged

PERSONA NON GRATA

All posts reflect my opinion only and are not shared by all forum members nor intended as statement of facts.  I am doing the best I can with the information available.

Murder & Crime on Aruba Summary http://tinyurl.com/2nus7c
pdh3
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3020



« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2007, 07:10:47 PM »

Quote from: "Anna"
pdh3,
Ah, but not according to our new Congress!  Only Bush alone bears total blame for this morphing into something other than what it started out being.  Why not blame the insurgents and terrorists who are causing all the problems?  Why lie about their previous positions held, especially by the Clintons who had more information than Bush did upon his taking office?

Because there are no votes to be gotten from that, of course.  Gotta spin and twist with every word because there is a Presidential Election coming up in 2008.

This is not about concern for troops, Iraq, national security, conflict in the Middle East, foreign policy or anything other than getting votes in the next election.

Shame on them all!  And I think contrary to your POV that we have much to be proud about in Iraq.  Doing the right thing is always a source of comfort even if the results are not all they should be or that could reasonably be expected from the effort given.

Just my opinion.

.

.


I NEVER said we had nothing to be proud of in Iraq. Not one single time. You don't know really, what my point of view is, beyond the fact that I am disappointed in the Bush Admin. and how they have handled the war effort. That DOES NOT mean that I think every single thing has been a waste, or that we have not done some good in some areas.
But the buck always stops at the top. Bush asked for the job, so he has to take the heat. He is supposed to be the boss, and he had the Congressional Majority when he made his decisions, so don't blame the new one.
Logged

What's done in the dark will always come to light.
Anna
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 18150



« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2007, 01:47:16 AM »

pdh3,
You are right, I have no way of knowing what your POV is with regard to Iraq, all I know is what you said and not once did you reference anything positive, just all the "shame" to go around.  I am merely saying I do not share your sense of shame.

And Bush did not invade Iraq without Congressional approval.  Sorry, but I think that spreads the blame around especially when both the Clintons and others were practically demanding that he do so.

But to his credit, Bush has never tried to pass the buck on anything and stands behind his decisions completely.  He is not the one claiming to have been mislead although he could do that.  That would be Hillary and some of the others in this Congress who by the way certainly are not NEW by any stretch of the imagination and were right there when the vote was taken authorizing this action.  Bush did so with the full support of the vast majority of those in congress today much as they are denying this and trying to pretend NOW that they didn't vote to do just that.  And they had the same information that Bush had or had access to it had they bothered to find out the situation.  I don't respect people who do this Monday morning quaterbacking type of logic and pretend they held a position opposite to what they truly did at the time.

Bush stands behind his decision as do I and I only wish that those in congress now lying about their original position were half so honest. They are not. I have never seen such shameful behavior toward troops they sent into battle as threatening to cut off funding.

That would surely be one way to lose this war which without a doubt is their objective in order to garner votes for Democrats in the 2008 presidential election.  Make things bad enough to insure a change of parties even if it means cut and run or cut off funding and destroying a thriving economy, do whatever it takes is their policy.

This is a risky strategy and congress might do well to note that while the President has a low approval rating right now, their own is several points lower.  They may not have the support for some of these things they are doing that they fantasize they do.

And note carefully which ones use the term redeploy for they certainly are NOT talking about bringing any troops home but sending them to Afghanistan where the terrain and weather make fighting so much worse and also to Dunfar, Somalia and other places.  

Troops brought home are troops no longer really needed and will put most of them out of jobs as well.  I sure hope all those so desperate to bring them home are willing to give up their job to employ these deserving veterans and have no doubt that they are.

But cutting off funds is one way to end a war all right.  Let's just see how well those troops do with no bullets, huh?  Great plan, that one.

And once they are extracted from the region, there will be no going back to assist Israel or Lebanon or any of our other allies in the region as that sort of thing is just not done, can't turn deployments of that size around on a dime.  We have supported Israel since it's inception as a nation, something I am loath to see us abandon as this new policy dictates we do.

Just my own opinions and I certainly do not expect anyone else to share them.  But I know lots of people who do.

.
Logged

PERSONA NON GRATA

All posts reflect my opinion only and are not shared by all forum members nor intended as statement of facts.  I am doing the best I can with the information available.

Murder & Crime on Aruba Summary http://tinyurl.com/2nus7c
justinsmama
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3204



WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2007, 09:17:55 AM »

Lots of people did it so it's okay that I did?

Instead of pointing fingers, how about some solutions? We are a nation of Americans first and foremost, not Dem or Rep or any other party.
Logged

mrs. red
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9318



WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2007, 04:08:38 PM »

I saw a poll the other day that actually said that there were people that hoped we lost the War because it would help Dems win the White House....


that statement troubled me beyond belief, because what it actually said to me was that they don't get what the War is about.....
Logged

To accomplish great things we must not only act but also dream, not only plan but also believe.
Author: Anatole
pdh3
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3020



« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2007, 08:50:33 PM »

Anna - I think you are reading things into my posts that are influenced by the fact that I'm not happy with Bush's handling of the war. You want to try to turn me into a far left liberal because you don't like my opinion.
I personally do think it is shameful to send our soldiers into war based on a lie, and then try to explain it as something else when the lie is exposed. And to say...oh well, now that we are here, let's take 4 years to achieve little progress, and finally admit that we are not winning when you can't escape the truth. The Bush Admin. has made a mess of Iraq. The whole strategy of Iraq was wrong, and the Bush Admin. is in charge, so yes, I am laying the blame at their door. I expect excellence from my leaders if they are sending my friends and neighbors into harm's way, and I'm not satisfied with what we've had so far. We have the best military in the world, and we are stumbling because they have been hobbled. I don't understand why some are satisfied with that, and why some are not troubled by the fact that we started a war on false information, and then tried to rationalize it after the fact. Is it any wonder Bush has lost the trust of his country, for the most part?
I also blamed Congress, Anna in an earlier post. All of them - Democrats and Republicans alike.
I don't think either party has all the answers, and neither one is any better than the other. There are lives at take here, but the pettyness continues. And I think that's the most shameful of all. Finger pointing in a time of war will not help us achieve our goals. We cannot change the fact that we invaded Iraq. Just do something constructive about it today.
I do expect more, because ordinary Americans, every day, go to work and do their best, for their paycheck at the end of the week. Our military is doing it's best under extreme circumstances, for love of their country.
We deserve better than this, and we did not vote Bush into office to fail us, and in so many ways he has...Katrina, Iraq, gas prices....every major test Bush has faced has been handled in a less than satisfactory way.
I am making every effort to educate myself on the candidates we have running for office right now, in the hope that we can have a more effective President elected.
Logged

What's done in the dark will always come to light.
Dihannah1
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5264


God watch over our children and keep them safe.


« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2007, 12:13:41 AM »

Ok,  I am going to agree with both pdh and Anna here.  Yes, mistakes have been made and it's not perfect in Iraq now.   Yes, both parties voted for the war on the same intelligence, right or wrong.   We can sit around and hope for the best, or stand up and support our troops and quit bashing Bush.  No matter what, our troops and our enemies are hearing the same message.  So whether we agree on what is going on now, we need to support Bush and our troops.  Our enemies love nothing more than to see us dividing and bickering amongst ourselves.  We need to put the past aside and move on.  If Bush thinks we need a surge, then let it be.  I honestly in my heart, believe Bush wants what is best for this war, he has a lot at stake personally and I do NOT believe he is being vindictave or has an alterior motive.  He is doing the best with what information he has. Remember, there are intelligence and information we are not privvy to.  The Dems. are only playing on the weaknesses, not being fair about the positive.  I don't like this war anymore than others, but it IS necessary!  Who here really, truly thinks Bush wants to go down with a bad legacy?  I truly, in my heart, believe he is doing what is right, like it or not!

Do I want our troops over there any longer than necessary,  NO!
Am I willing to give Bush another opportunity after making changes in his staff and military chiefs?  YES!   Do you see another choice for the next 2 yrs???

If nothing else,  let's PLEASE not give our enemies the satisfaction of thinking we are WITH them and against our president. We HAVE to stand behind our president, disagreements or not.  He is here for another 2 years..   It's not about political lines, it's about supporting our country and troops!  Give him one more chance with a troop surge!  At the end of the 2 yrs., with an educated decision, then vote with your heart and knowledge!  

Ok, done ranting now......

All this bickering!  I can see the likes of Osama Bin Laden and co.  smiling and enjoying every second of it, waiting to prance again at the next chance!
Logged

God has FINAL Judgement!<br />
crazybabyborg
Guest
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2007, 03:47:53 AM »

We are in Iraq. Our troops are there. What has been accomplished since we've been there? We haven't found weapons of mass destructions. Those are facts.

So are these:
The dictator of that country has been disposed. The systematic genocide of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens by Sadaam's terrorist regime, has ended. The state sponsored rape of children has stopped. The citizens of that country began by toppling down a statue of their tormentor and
Iraq has held free elections..........women were allowed to vote! A new democracy put in place by Iraqi citizens was established. The justice system established by that democracy, put the former dictator of that country on trial and followed a justice system to adhere to "fairness" despite murder and threat to everyone involved in that effort. They persevered, and they reached a verdict. Sadaam was found guilty of crimes against humanity. They carried out the sentence rendered in the name of justice, and they did that without a single American present.

Think about that. American troops and American idealism brought a new concept to those tortured people, and "Justice" took the first tentative steps that country has known. And Justice did not falter but held firm to be dispensed even upon the former head of that country! On that day, regardless of how you feel about our involvement in Iraq, our troops were heroes!

For many Iraqis it was a defining event. Many had not believed that through the corruption that was all they had ever known, Saddam and his iron fist would be released from prison and be re-established. They came to the streets in celebration for the first time unafraid of being seen. Let no one suggest that we have accomplished nothing in Iraq. What has happened in Iraq is no less than a miracle.

And in the wings are the terrorists factions, spurring on, supplying munitions, setting up pockets of insurgency, bolstering divisiveness among islamic groups, dividing up Iraq for their own purposes to advance their G'had on the world of infidels. Iran is deeply involved in the difficulties we are experiencing in what they intend to claim as soon as we retreat. When it gets heated they pull back across the borders only to resurface at first opportunity. Make no mistake, American troops in Iraq are a threat to them and their plans.

The principles of the "West" is the stated target for them, and a democracy in Iraq vs. a country they can devour as soon as we are gone is what's at stake. THAT is the defining reason we are there, regardless of why we went in. That clash of ideals will take place. Radical Islam has sworn that it will and they have the funds, the technology, the focused mindset, and the astounding plan to bring it about. Unless we are willing to succumb to their world, to their God, and their authority, we will have to make a stand. Where that stand takes place, we can, at this juncture, choose. I, for one, think Iraq is the best place to draw that line.

First, we have made a commitment to the people who are just emerging from an absolute oppresion that has never fostered or allowed a sense of "nationality". We fault the Iraqi troops for ineptness and lack of committment, and make no allowances for the vast differences of their experiences when compared to our own. Iraqi troops can be trained by our own in relatively short order, but stop and contrast the roles of leadership within their military for one moment. Our high ranking commanders and strategic personnell have come up through the ranks, and have had years of experience and training to be in those positions. There is no substitute for that experience.

Recently I saw where Iraqi troops had been ambushed and called on American troops for help. By the time US troops arrived, the Iraqi troops were all dead. Eight of the commanders had been executed. The troops had run out of ammunition and the commanders were lined up and executed. THEY RAN OUT OF BULLETS! That didn't happen because they weren't committed to the cause, and it didn't happen because they want us to fight the war for them. It happened from lack of experience, and it was tragic.

Have we thought of the fate of the troops and citizens in that country who have fought with us? How long do you think they will last at the hands of the terrorists who will pounce on that country for ownership as soon as we retreat and leave them to stand against the wave. It will be a lesson that no other country in that region will ever forget, and the US will never be trusted again by any individual, weak or mighty, who dares to dream of freedom.

I hope the news media stays to cover it, and I hope they get it right, because they aren't getting it right, now. Did you see what the AP, yes, the Associated Press did? Folks, the AP is a feeder service for all of the major news distribution and they reported around Thanksgiving that four Shiite mosques were invaded, burned, and the people in them killed while Iraqi troops stood by and watched. When push finally came to shove, they named their source for the information. Last week, independent news crews finally made their way into the area to film the ruins of the churches. They didn't have any problem locating them because they hadn't been touched and were in full operation. When the AP was confronted, their only public statement was that they would no longer name their sources!

You can't watch the news without hearing Hillary declare to the world that if the war isn't over before she's in the White House, it will be in the very month she moves in. I'm sure that's a red circled date on the calendars of  every terrorist regime in the Middle East. She isn't the only one planning a move at that time. It's a date that will drenched in red for others, too. There are children, hopeful innocents standing in the crossroads and looking for help to come. They'll see American backs turned to them in the distance obligated to Hillary's ambition. After all, she and Bill are returning to the White House.

My opinions
Logged
Sam
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2387



« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2007, 11:08:40 AM »

Dihanna1 and Crazybabyborg, you both said it so much better than me but expressed my feelings exactly. Thanks.
Sam
Logged

Just a swinging with the tribe
Anna
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 18150



« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2007, 12:49:02 PM »

Anyone flatters themselves claiming  that I am trying to paint you as a far right liberal or anything else.  I don't care what you are or what you think since some here  have been so rude to my friend Tylergal that she will no longer post.  What I do care about is anyone who posts things that are just not factually true and encourages others to agree with them.

Now if that shoe fits you, wear it, and if it doesn't don't.  So you see, this is not a personal attack on anybody but I am sure there are some who will try to claim that it is.

I would like to encourage one and all to read the term under which CONGRESS and the President went to war in Iraq.  First and foremost was the violation of the terms of the ceasefire agreement.  Saddam was firing on our planes and those of the British in the no fire zones, etc.  There were reasons other than simply WMD.

Having given three months for the removal of just about anything under the sun from that country, it is possible even those existed prior to invasion and the Russians were there for some reason, scurrying about like ants for months prior to our troops going into Iraq.  Lots of papers have been found that do point to attempts at various methods Saddam was undertaking and it is also now believed that his own scientists may have been deceiving Saddam, possibly in an attempt to prevent their own execution for failure to provide WMD on his demands.

There were several points specified as the reason for the invasion, not just WMD, in addition to violation of the terms of the cease fire and while I do not recall them from memory, I do believe genocide against the Kurds was listed along with waging war against his neighboring countries.

Now when there is sectarian violence and things are not going well, we have those who like to pretend that the only reason given was WMD when that is just not the case.  The genocide has been proven in a court of law, 100,000 Kurds killed.  It is estimated that Saddam is responsible directly or indirectly for the death of one million people.

No one has put our troops in harms way based on a lie.  Iraq was also in possession of 550 tons of the "yellowcake" uranium used for making nuclear weapons.  The British until this day stand behind their intelligence reports that Iraq was seeking to purchase more.  This can be found in documents that they call the Butler report.  This is what Bush cited in his speech, the British, not our own intel.

CBB is correct, we have had some of the most liberally biased reporting of this war ever.  We are now like the Russians under Soviet rule and do now even have factual news reporting, only a slanted version of events.  Recently we have even had the press violate the rule of not showing American troops being killed by the airing of a soldier being shot in the head before even his family had been notified.  I do hope they are sued for that.

And yes, Mrs. Red, I believe the number was 34% in this country openly admit that they hope we lose the War in Iraq so that the Democrats can overtake not only congress but the White House in the 2008 political election.  

With people like that, I find it amazing that things have gone as well as they have in Iraq.  I credit our incredible military with what successes have been made.  Many also tend to forget that Saddam had maintained a very bloody war himself for the last ten years with Iran, costing the lives of many on an ongoing basis in addition to those who he succeeded in outright killing.  Tens of thousands have lost their lives in that alone.

He is quoted as saying he had 33 million people in a country where he only needed 5 million to get an idea of where he was headed with all this.  So while it is easy to claim that the ONLY reason for going to war in Iraq was WMD and on that basis alone claim being "lied" to (Tenet said slam dunk on that--I guess the President is supposed to actually go into the field and gather intelligence these days--let's see Hillary doing that!) the facts say otherwise.

I just ask that folks be truthful in what they post.  If factually correct, I can tolerate just about any opinion but when things are based on opinions, feelings or just hatred for the current administration is when I have a problem.  It's fine to have opinions but I don't think it is right to state things that are not true as facts and make accusations based on erroneous statements.  I just want the truth and can certainly say that never have I heard this President once blame anybody else for anything that has happened under his watch.  That is a far cry from what some others are doing who now try to change history.

And while these are my opinions, I do base my opinions on facts and truth and go from there.  I do not state my opinion as a fact on any event that has actually taken place but try to ascertain as best I can what has actually happened before stating something as a fact and I never rely on just one source or slant on any given situation.

And I fully understand why so many will not even bother to try to post in this political forum any more.

.
Logged

PERSONA NON GRATA

All posts reflect my opinion only and are not shared by all forum members nor intended as statement of facts.  I am doing the best I can with the information available.

Murder & Crime on Aruba Summary http://tinyurl.com/2nus7c
Dihannah1
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5264


God watch over our children and keep them safe.


« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2007, 05:43:04 PM »

Anna,  I want to thank YOU for your factual posts and educating people on either side with facts, rather than opinion.  I appreciate all you offer here, even with some of the disagreements and negative posts you have endured.

You pointed out a couple of things that are very disturbing, but not talked about much.  The russians and how much involvement they had, what they are doing now, we don't know about.  Putin is becoming scary....  And to add to that, what about Venezuala and Iran in bed together.  The stepping up of terrorist activity in Asia and on and on.   The Dems. are going to use diplomacy with these radical, self absorbed crazy men???  Are we just going to 'talk' everybody into being suddenly nice?  I hate to think of losing in Iraq and what the consequences all over the world would be...
I wish just one of the major cable news networks would step up to the plate and do some real fair and honest reporting.  If nothing more than be different than the rest!  I believe Fox is the closest to fairness, but still has a way to go in it's slanted reporting.  I blame them and our liberal celebrities for most of the Bush bashing spreading across our country.

Mrs. Red, thanks for pointing out the 34% who want us to lose for the benefit of the dems.  As much as I watch the news, I had not heard that.  Truly terrifying!

One last note, I did make a comment on a remark Tyler made that I felt was uncalled for against other posters.  I do however, agree with most she says.  My comments on 2 statements, one by Tyler and one by Anna were not meant to be hurtful, just my opinion on what I felt were uncalled attacks of others here.  I see both sides doing it and am against it either way.  I would like to see one side at least not stoop down to others levels and personally attack is all.  I always tell my kids "Do not lower yourselves to others levels", when they have been wronged and feel the need to get 'even'.

If ANYBODY here ever feels I have made a personal attack, please point it out,  as that is not my intention.   I will stand up for what I believe in no matter what, but will never purposely attack another for their opinions whom I disagree with.  (if I am one who caused Tyler to stop posting, please point this out to her?)

With love and respect to all.
Logged

God has FINAL Judgement!<br />
Anna
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 18150



« Reply #14 on: February 05, 2007, 09:54:10 PM »

Dihannah,
I apologize to anybody that I posted something to that was a personal attack.  I am not aware that I have done so but if I did, it was not intended to be personal except when Tyler was attacked.

And I must also state that we seem to have a very large number of posters in the political forum who chose to take things personally and instead of refuting posts, want to be the victim of something or other.  I want facts and not bickering.  If I post something that is not factually true, I expect negative results.  And I want correction, not by opinion but by facts.

I do not think that blaming Bush for sectarian violence in Iraq is supported by the facts nor by history.  See the Muslim/Hindu?Everybody in that country fighting when the British left there, I believe they killed well over a million people, but from memory and have not read anything on that lately.

My point is no one blamed the British.  They handed them their freedom and they chose to fight among themselves, ancient hatreds having nothing to do with the British.  Same thing in Iraq, these conflicts certainly predate our involvement there and Bush or anything else Americans have done for that country.  If they want to kill each other, I am afraid we may not be able to stop them but right now our effort to do so is valiant and certainly not anything that I am ashamed or nor do I see it as the fault of our continued policy of liberty for all and representative government for all nations on earth.  

This has always been what America stood for and as a nation, we have never flinched when called upon to fight for the freedom of others.  We have not been attacked on our mainland in recent history, thankfully, and all our battles have been in the effort to bring freedom and liberty to others.  Because some of our allies no longer support this kind of effort and have bought into the self serving attitudes of doing nothing no matter what happens because their economies are bankrupt as well as their leaders morally does not mean we should follow them down that path.  I am thankful we are standing by our guns literally on this belief in freedom for all people.

If America has to go it alone, I would still rather see us do the right thing morally than turn a blind eye.

And once again, I urge all to read the document Bush presented to congress and also his State of the Union Address for he did not lie about anything.  I do not recall the exact number of reasons in the document for invading Iraq but believe the first to be violation of the terms of the cease fire, one was genocide, there were far more than just WMD.

And to this day the British stand behind the Butler report of Iraq attempting to buy more yellowcake.  Turns out they already had 550 tons of it but you won't hear about that in the liberally biased press of this country which is now reminiscent of Pravda during the Cold war.

My opinions, all, but I do try to keep them based on something FACTUAL and not just what I am told to think.  I do my homework if nothing else and welcome any correction of factual errors.

Anna
Logged

PERSONA NON GRATA

All posts reflect my opinion only and are not shared by all forum members nor intended as statement of facts.  I am doing the best I can with the information available.

Murder & Crime on Aruba Summary http://tinyurl.com/2nus7c
Anna
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 18150



« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2007, 10:11:20 PM »

I think I should clarify the above post is referring to when the British left INDIA and all the Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/Everybody in the entire country seemed to get involved in the fighting.

I am sure if anyone had tried to blame the Brits for all that they would not have hesitated to set them straight and that is what I wish our politicos would do instead of trying to make political hay out of it to garner votes.

I cannot remember that history well but it was very like what we are facing today in Iraq and has happened at times throughout history.  Could it be this happens where there was not a democracy or representative government well established and in place before the fighting?  I wonder about that.  What is different about liberating one country that does this from another that does not break out in all this fighting among themselves?

The change of power is seen as a vacuum by some I think who will give it their best shot to fill what they perceive as a void and also we have the radical Muslims who think democracy evil and want only the country to be ruled by the Muslim laws and system of justice.  

Because they are fighting each other is just not our fault.  And before this Saddam kept a war going with Iran for over ten years with the loss of life just about incalculable for that so it is not as though we marched into some bucolic countryside and made trouble.  He said he had 33 million and only needed five for his country and has no qualms at trimming that number down and is estimated to have caused the death of a million people.

Yes, war is terrible and I hate it as do all sane people but sometimes the alternative is even worse.  I don't know how we can get out of Iraq without the fighting among themselves being a disaster of Biblical proportion.  2 million killed in India in a similar situation and that same number when we abandoned our allies in Vietnam.  Avoiding this bloodbath I believe is paramount in our efforts right now to stabilize the country at least enough so that we can leave without this happening.

We as people need to learn from out past mistakes in dealing with sectarian and ethnic fighting as happened in Southeast Asia.  And CBB is correct that they will now just wait until January 3, 2009 when they will all be home free if we have a president who doesn't support preventing them from killing so many innocent people caught up in this.  

.
Logged

PERSONA NON GRATA

All posts reflect my opinion only and are not shared by all forum members nor intended as statement of facts.  I am doing the best I can with the information available.

Murder & Crime on Aruba Summary http://tinyurl.com/2nus7c
Nut44x4
Maine - USA
Global Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18799


RIP Grumpy Cat :( I will miss you.


« Reply #16 on: December 19, 2009, 09:50:39 AM »

I don't know where to put this post. I try to avoid politics because I don't feel comfy here, lol. Anyway....I'll drop this here and if it needs to be moved, that can be arranged.


Iraq says new mass grave found near Kirkuk
By SAMEER N. YACOUB (AP) – 5 hours ago

BAGHDAD — A mass grave discovered in northeast Iraq contains dozens of bodies, mostly of women and children believed killed during a crackdown against Kurds by former dictator Saddam Hussein, an Iraqi official said Saturday.

The grave was originally found nearly two years ago west of Kirkuk, though its discovery was only made public this week after forensic pathologists began examining it, said Majid Abdullah Karim, an official with the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights.

Investigators initially put the number of bodies found at 185, though Karim said the number could be "significantly less" based on the number of bones and skulls recovered Friday by pathologists. Karim did not give an exact number, estimating only "dozens."

Mass graves across Iraq have been turning up with some frequency since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam's regime.

The latest discovery was made at a former military detention camp used by Saddam's forces in Tubzama, just west of Kirkuk, 180 miles (290 kilometers) north of Baghdad, said Karim. The grave was discovered after people reported seeing bones and bits of clothing at the camp, he added.

The remains were believed to be those of Kurds killed between 1988 and 1991, Karim said. Many Kurds were taken to the detention camp by Saddam's forces, he added.

The bodies were determined to be mostly women and children, based on the clothing and personal items excavated at the site, Karim said.

The remains will be tested for DNA, and then likely will be returned to the semiautonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq for full identification.

Hundreds of thousands of Kurds were killed or expelled from Iraq in the late 1980s and then again during the Kurdish uprising following the first Gulf War in 1991.

Baghdad's attacks — including the use of poison gas in the Kurdish town of Halabja — came to symbolize the cruelty of Saddam's grip on power and brought the nickname "Chemical Ali" to one of the masterminds, Saddam's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid.

A number of regime officials, including al-Majid, have been sentenced to death. The sentence to date has not been carried out.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hKYzahu3ucIxqVlrnb_-RVRMejkgD9CM9IQG0
Logged

Brothers and Sisters, I bid you beware/Of giving your heart to a dog to tear  -- Rudyard Kipling

One who doesn't trust is never deceived...

'I remained too much inside my head and ended up losing my mind' -Edgar Allen Poe
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #17 on: December 19, 2009, 10:50:46 AM »

(In never felt comfortable with politics until last year, it wasn't on the radar.)

I don't know where to put this post. I try to avoid politics because I don't feel comfy here, lol. Anyway....I'll drop this here and if it needs to be moved, that can be arranged.


Iraq says new mass grave found near Kirkuk
By SAMEER N. YACOUB (AP) – 5 hours ago

BAGHDAD — A mass grave discovered in northeast Iraq contains dozens of bodies, mostly of women and children believed killed during a crackdown against Kurds by former dictator Saddam Hussein, an Iraqi official said Saturday.

The grave was originally found nearly two years ago west of Kirkuk, though its discovery was only made public this week after forensic pathologists began examining it, said Majid Abdullah Karim, an official with the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights.

Investigators initially put the number of bodies found at 185, though Karim said the number could be "significantly less" based on the number of bones and skulls recovered Friday by pathologists. Karim did not give an exact number, estimating only "dozens."

Mass graves across Iraq have been turning up with some frequency since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam's regime.

The latest discovery was made at a former military detention camp used by Saddam's forces in Tubzama, just west of Kirkuk, 180 miles (290 kilometers) north of Baghdad, said Karim. The grave was discovered after people reported seeing bones and bits of clothing at the camp, he added.

The remains were believed to be those of Kurds killed between 1988 and 1991, Karim said. Many Kurds were taken to the detention camp by Saddam's forces, he added.

The bodies were determined to be mostly women and children, based on the clothing and personal items excavated at the site, Karim said.

The remains will be tested for DNA, and then likely will be returned to the semiautonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq for full identification.

Hundreds of thousands of Kurds were killed or expelled from Iraq in the late 1980s and then again during the Kurdish uprising following the first Gulf War in 1991.

Baghdad's attacks — including the use of poison gas in the Kurdish town of Halabja — came to symbolize the cruelty of Saddam's grip on power and brought the nickname "Chemical Ali" to one of the masterminds, Saddam's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid.

A number of regime officials, including al-Majid, have been sentenced to death. The sentence to date has not been carried out.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hKYzahu3ucIxqVlrnb_-RVRMejkgD9CM9IQG0


I've always wondered why some didn't see Saddam Hussein as a bad person for all the killing and testing he did on ethnic minorities.   I believe some described it at GENOCIDE.

How many are alive today because Saddam Hussein and his regime are gone?

The gas attacks and weapons experimentation on these unfortunate folks have been in the media for years.

Genocide comes in many forms, and for some reason continues with government that legislate based on race, ethnic, and political favoritism, neoptism, and cronyism.
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 7.061 seconds with 19 queries.