Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alias Now that child has had his fun, let's have some truth......
Quotes From Democrats on the Threat of Iraq's WMDs
From Amy Hess,
Your Guide to Conservative Politics: U.S..
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Bill Clinton: "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."
Madeleine Albright, (Clinton Secretary of State): "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
Sandy Berger, (Clinton National Security Advisor): "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."
Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. … The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all."
Dick Durbin: "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…Iraq…may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."
John Kerry: "If you don't believe…Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
John Edwards: "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."
Nancy Pelosi: "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."
A Letter From The Senators: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton.
Sources and More: http://tinyurl.com/rzfod |
Could this be because the Administration twisted the intelligence given to them by the CIA and other sources and that most of the Senators, Reps and Congresspeople, believed it too?
We all know Bush lied:
The president had hoped Saddam could be removed in some way short of war. But early in 2002, Woodward reports, the CIA concluded they could not overthrow Saddam. That word came from the CIA's head of Iraq operations, a man known simply as “Saul.” (Curveball?)
"Saul gets together a briefing and who does he give it to first? Dick Cheney. He said, ‘I can count the number of sources, human sources, spies we have in Iraq on one hand,’” says Woodward. “I asked the president, ‘What was your reaction that the CIA couldn't overthrow Saddam? And the president said one word. 'Darn.'"
The vice president led the way on declaring that Saddam Hussein definitely had weapons of mass destruction. Before that, the president had said only that Saddam “desires them.”
But ten days later, the vice president said Saddam already had weapons of mass destruction. And 12 days after that, the president too had apparently been persuaded: “A lot of people understand he holds weapons of mass destruction.”
Three months later, on Dec. 21, 2002, Woodward says CIA Director George Tenet brought his deputy, John McLaughlin, to the oval office to show the president and the vice president their best evidence that Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction.
”McLaughlin has access to all the satellite photos, and he goes in and he has flip charts in the oval office. The president listens to all of this and McLaughlin's done. And, and the president kind of, as he's inclined to do, says ‘Nice try, but that isn't gonna sell Joe Public. That isn't gonna convince Joe Public,’” says Woodward.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in612067.shtml
The president is guilty only of taking seriously what faithful friends told him. One is expected to assume that his friend the vice president, Dick Cheney, neglected to tell him that his office had ordered the uranium from Niger story checked out in February 2002 and had found there was nothing to it.
The Bush administration has distinguished itself by its inability or unwillingness to deal with allies as equals, with legitimate interests and views of their own to be respected.
This is the issue Washington obfuscates and London has refused to raise. Prime Minister Blair's support for the United States has been exploited to lend legitimacy to a war entirely conceived and controlled by Washington.
The United States has a new kind of government, which takes a new view of what allies are worth, and how they are expected to behave.
This has been an underlying issue throughout the U.S.-European drama of the past 10 months. It will determine the future of the Western alliance, as well as the character of the new European Union now being ushered into existence by an EU constitution, EU expansion and an independent EU security policy.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0717-04.htm You are always bitching about the Democrats investigating this Administration's decisions. Then you bitch because they believed the Bush/Cheney supplied intel. Make up your mind please.
I am not sticking up for the Dems as personally, I think both parties cater to whoever is paying them at the time, and they all could care less about the average person. Who do you impeach when everyone in power sucks ass?