Cajundude 0 #1 July 27, 2004 he has the balls to take action while others are all talk? "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 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), 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 ims continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #2 July 27, 2004 Posted, re-posted, and re-posted again. We all agree Hussein was bad. The issue is, was invading Iraq the only method available to us? What you call "the balls to take action". I call lack of good judgment and unwillingness to seek alternatives to war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #3 July 27, 2004 I like lemurs. They're fun to watch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cajundude 0 #4 July 27, 2004 QuotePosted, re-posted, and re-posted again. We all agree Hussein was bad. The issue is, was invading Iraq the only method available to us? What you call "the balls to take action". I call lack of good judgment and unwillingness to seek alternatives to war. I agree there should be alternatives to war by all means, however, how many attacks should it take? Should we allow an attack from each potential terrorist before we take action? How many 1000s of lives should be lost in cowardly attacks before action is taken? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #5 July 27, 2004 Unfortunately, the issue has become entirely partisan. These quotes have been posted before and represent little more than the fact that these men stand for nothing, except for holding office. FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #6 July 27, 2004 *sigh* Are you claiming that invading Iraq was because of 9/11? I don't think Bush is even trying to pass that one off anymore. I wish he would have had the balls to go into Afghanistan with more than one division and get the people who were responsible for 9/11. We sent 15 times the number of troops to Iraq and I fail to see how that made us one bit safer from terrorists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #7 July 27, 2004 Quotehe has the balls to take action while others are all talk? "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 "One way or the other", i.e. Clinton's way or GWB's way. Both were effective, but Clinton's way didn't require the lives of a thousand American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cajundude 0 #8 July 27, 2004 There was a Clinton way? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #9 July 27, 2004 QuoteThere was a Clinton way? How many WMDs and long-range missiles have we found since invading Iraq? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cajundude 0 #10 July 27, 2004 QuoteQuoteThere was a Clinton way? How many WMDs and long-range missiles have we found since invading Iraq? Blues, Dave Well, none yet, but there is a lot of desert to uncover. We've found planes but you sure won't see that on the media. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #11 July 27, 2004 QuotePosted, re-posted, and re-posted again. We all agree Hussein was bad. The issue is, was invading Iraq the only method available to us? What you call "the balls to take action". I call lack of good judgment and unwillingness to seek alternatives to war. Only - NO - We could do as Kerry will do if elected and get in bed with them.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #12 July 27, 2004 You mean this: http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_247.shtml http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93483,00.html http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/030802/2003080210.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3116259.stmYesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #13 July 27, 2004 Quote[ "One way or the other", i.e. Clinton's way or GWB's way. Both were effective, but Clinton's way didn't require the lives of a thousand American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis. Clinton's bombings certainly involved Iraqi deaths. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cajundude 0 #14 July 27, 2004 QuoteYou mean this: http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_247.shtml http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93483,00.html http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/030802/2003080210.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3116259.stm Yep, those would be the planes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #15 July 28, 2004 Thousands of Iraqi's, eh? And the ones fed into the plastic shredders and mass murdered and placed in mass graves - they just don't count for anything, do they? Of course not, how silly of me. The only dead Iraqis that count are the ones killed by US soldiers during the liberation. The rest of them - they just didn't care anyway, else they wouldn't have died, right? Sarin filled artillery shells have been found. The correct line for the leftists should be 'no massive WMD stockpiles' now because a WMD has been found. Must at least make some pretense of keeping the leftist rheteric somewhat honest, if still indefensible. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #16 July 28, 2004 QuoteThousands of Iraqi's, eh? And the ones fed into the plastic shredders and mass murdered and placed in mass graves - they just don't count for anything, do they? Of course not, how silly of me. The only dead Iraqis that count are the ones killed by US soldiers during the liberation. The rest of them - they just didn't care anyway, else they wouldn't have died, right? Sarin filled artillery shells have been found. The correct line for the leftists should be 'no massive WMD stockpiles' now because a WMD has been found. Must at least make some pretense of keeping the leftist rheteric somewhat honest, if still indefensible. Obsolete shells from 2 wars ago hardly count as weapons of any kind, let alone "mass destruction". Get real. The war was based on false premises and has resulted in the unnecessary deaths of over 900 Americans. Further, it has distracted from the REAL war on terrorism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #17 July 28, 2004 Ooooh. So now the WMD are obsolete from 2 years ago. What was the capacity of that sarin again? 5K? 10K? 20K? How many deaths did it have the potential to kill? And how is it that more than one shell containing a WMD that wasn't supposed to exist happen to actually be found in Iraq - luckily as part of a shitty IED design? The WMD were found, but not the RIGHT WMD so we still hate GWB because he's a bad republican who hates the environment, loathes minorities, and makes fun of fecal sculpture artwork funded at taxpayer expense. Plus - he reads the Bible, cultist that he is! And his DUI, gosh, that just makes him a baaaaaaad man, wouldn't you agree Mr. Kopechne? Yaaaawn. The fact remains that invasion is the route the US chose to pursue. Kerry's horrid plan of pseudo-extrication via UN takeover won't help matters anymore than his constant flipflops give him credibility.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #18 July 28, 2004 We found plenty of WMDs. Are the liberal sheep still in denial? Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tonyhays 86 #19 July 28, 2004 Quote We found plenty of WMDs. Are the liberal sheep still in denial? Yes, but there not huge stockpiles of WMD's!!!“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #20 July 28, 2004 The agreement was clear NO WMD. None."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #21 July 28, 2004 What agreement? The ones the liberal sheep decided on? Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #22 July 28, 2004 QuotePosted, re-posted, and re-posted again. We all agree Hussein was bad. The issue is, was invading Iraq the only method available to us? What you call "the balls to take action". I call lack of good judgment and unwillingness to seek alternatives to war. By jove, you're absolutely right! We could have asked him AGAIN to not build weapons of mass destruction!! That woulda taught 'im! --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #23 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuotehe has the balls to take action while others are all talk? "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 "One way or the other", i.e. Clinton's way or GWB's way. Both were effective, but Clinton's way didn't require the lives of a thousand American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis. You might also recall that it didn't get the job done, either. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #24 July 28, 2004 QuoteThat woulda taught 'im! Come on Jeff. Don't be silly. We could have said, "pretty please." That would have surly done the trick. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #25 July 28, 2004 The UN resolution that no one besides the actual coalition in Iraq stood by."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
