PDA

View Full Version : Real Democrats Quotes Concerning Weapons Of Mass Destruction



Jo Vale Tudo
10th September 04, 04:40 AM
"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 real and a grave threat to our security." -Democrat and Presidential Candidate John F. Kerry, Oct. 2002

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." -Democrat Presidential Candidate Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA Jan. 2, 2003)

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know that after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation" -Democrat Presidential Candidate John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."-Democrat and Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards, Oct. 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -Democrat and Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards, Oct. 10, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of thread Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow" -Democrat Bill Clinton in 1998

"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 deliver capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al Queda 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 all know too well affects American security." -Democrat Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."-Democrat Robert Byrd, October 2002

(continued)

Jo Vale Tudo
10th September 04, 04:41 AM
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -Democrat Tom Daschle

"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 eleven 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." -Democrat Henry Waxman, Oct. 10, 2002

"Saddam's goal is to achieve the lifting of the UN sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -Democrat Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -Democrat Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001. He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -Democrat and Presidential Candidate Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -Democrat and Presidential Candidate Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"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.-Democrat Al Gore, 2002

"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.-Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."-Democrat Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."-Democrat Senator Carl Levin, Sept. 19, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."-Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."-Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller, 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 of weapons of mass destruction."-Democrat Senator Bob Graham, Dec. 8, 2002

"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." -Democrat National Security Advisor Sandy Berger

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -Democrat Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991-1994, despite Iraq's denials, UN inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons. UN inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction."-Democrat Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"Everyday Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -Democrat Presidential Candidate Joe Lieberman, August 2002

"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." -Democrat Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"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." -Democrat John Rockefeller, Oct. 10, 2002



I understand we didn't find any active stockpiles. I still have reason to believe they were either destroyed, or moved to other countries but thats just my theory (not a fact). Regardless, I'm glad Iraq is free from Saddam's rule. 1,000s of our soldiers died but liberated millions who were oppressed. I am also glad Saddam Hussein and his regime was taken care of before he became an immediate threat. According to the men and women's quotes above, he was well on his way to becoming a dangerous threat to anyone in the world. This is a man who mocked America the day after 9/11 on TV, saying we deserved it.

kikkoman893
10th September 04, 05:50 AM
you owned this thread! booyaka!

PeedeeShaolin
10th September 04, 06:49 AM
You're delusional.

First of all EVERYONE was saying there were weapons because THATS WHAT THE PRESIENT TOLD EVERYONE. It was URGENT we invade because Saddam was a GRAVE THREAT and the "smoking gun" could come in "the form of a mushroom cloud".

When you have a President talking this way every time he speaks the Democrats, and Republicans, only sin was believing a man who was full of shit up to his eyeballs.


1,000s of our soldiers died but liberated millions who were oppressed.

Read the news lately?

There just might be a wee bit more voilence and death in Iraq NOW than before.

Jo Vale Tudo
10th September 04, 07:01 AM
Err according to the quotes above, and to my understanding, they said those things due to various sources, intelligence and experience. The purpose of the post was to show what Democrats said and felt during the time, thus the added dates after their names. And yes I have read the news lately. Its a war and its not surprising that people were going to die. In this situation, sacrifices must me made. Did I feel the war was neccessary? Yes. Some of my reasons are stated by the individuals I quoted above. Do I feel the sacrifice our soldiers made were worth it? Yes. I'll always regard them as heroes.

Leodom
10th September 04, 07:08 AM
edit -- double post

Leodom
10th September 04, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by PeedeeShaolin
You're delusional.

First of all EVERYONE was saying there were weapons because THATS WHAT THE PRESIENT TOLD EVERYONE. It was URGENT we invade because Saddam was a GRAVE THREAT and the "smoking gun" could come in "the form of a mushroom cloud".

When you have a President talking this way every time he speaks the Democrats, and Republicans, only sin was believing a man who was full of shit up to his eyeballs.



Read the news lately?

There just might be a wee bit more voilence and death in Iraq NOW than before.

You, sir, are incorrect. Read how many of the quotes are from before 2001. They may not all be listed, but there are many from 1998 when Clinton lobbed a few bombs at them. And as for "more violence now than before" that is not true. The violence now, however, is part of a war. The violence before was Saddam keeping the Iraqi's in check and his enemies at bay. Saddam killed more than have been killed in this war.

They all didn't say these things because of President Bush. You give Bush way too much credit. :)

Zendetta
10th September 04, 12:45 PM
You... you... mean the democrats are ALSO suck, that they too are weaselly warmongers when it suits their purposes, that they too can be totally fooled, or totally corrupt?!??!

Say it isn't so.....

In other words: no shit, Sherlock.

BTW: If Saddam was such a bad guy (and he was), then maybe we shouldn't have supported his rise to power, hmmmm?

Zendetta
10th September 04, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Jo Vale Tudo
Did I feel the war was neccessary? Yes. Some of my reasons are stated by the individuals I quoted above. Do I feel the sacrifice our soldiers made were worth it? Yes. I'll always regard them as heroes.

Why exactly do you think the war was justified?
Are you aware that plans existed to invade Iraq before 9/11?

Are you aware that Governments sometimes do things for reasons OTHER than what they give to their citizenry?

Jo Vale Tudo
10th September 04, 05:04 PM
Whoa, just when did I say that the Democrats were bad?

Why did I feel the war was justified? You can find some of the reasons from the quotes I posted above. Yes I am aware that plans existed to fight Saddam before 9/11. If you look at the dates of the quotes, many of them were way before 9/11. And yes, governments do things for multiple reasons, not just one.

Dejavu
10th September 04, 06:22 PM
9/11 has almost nothing to do with Saddam.

Both democrats and republicans are idiots.

SRK85
10th September 04, 07:35 PM
^^Haha agreed Nader knew that Saddam really didnt have weapons. I like Nader.

SRK85
10th September 04, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by Jo Vale Tudo


"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."-Democrat and Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards, Oct. 10, 2002
(continued)

Yeah but during the 80's we sold Iraq plenty WMDs the russians also aremd saddam.

Zendetta
10th September 04, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Jo Vale Tudo
Whoa, just when did I say that the Democrats were bad?

Why did I feel the war was justified? You can find some of the reasons from the quotes I posted above. Yes I am aware that plans existed to fight Saddam before 9/11. If you look at the dates of the quotes, many of them were way before 9/11. And yes, governments do things for multiple reasons, not just one.

Fair enough, Jo, so let me say it for you: those limp dicked donkeycrats suck balls.

Just not quite as much as their partners in crime, the republicans.

In my opinion, our government's real reasons for invading and occupying Iraq were/are a total fucking travesty that does a thorough dishonor to our armed services. Multiple reasons sure, but thats not the point. The point is the disparity between the real reasons and purposes, which are often very ugly, greedy, and self-serving, and the "feel good" reasons given to the public to get their support behind it.

Long story short - it wasn't for the WMDs, freedom, or stopping terror.

Jo Vale Tudo
10th September 04, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Zendetta
Fair enough, Jo, so let me say it for you: those limp dicked donkeycrats suck balls.

Just not quite as much as their partners in crime, the republicans.

In my opinion, our government's real reasons for invading and occupying Iraq were/are a total fucking travesty that does a thorough dishonor to our armed services. Multiple reasons sure, but thats not the point. The point is the disparity between the real reasons and purposes, which are often very ugly, greedy, and self-serving, and the "feel good" reasons given to the public to get their support behind it.

Long story short - it wasn't for the WMDs, freedom, or stopping terror.

Fair enough. You have your opinions according to what you know and I have mine. And none of us are going to jail for it! Hehe. Just one of the thigns that makes this country great.

Zendetta
16th September 04, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Jo Vale Tudo
Fair enough. You have your opinions according to what you know and I have mine. And none of us are going to jail for it! Hehe. Just one of the thigns that makes this country great.

I agree about freedom of speech and thought making this country great. On the other hand...

None of us are going to jail for it - YET. But remember, a US ambassador contradicted the Bush Admin's claims of Iraqi WMDs, and his CIA agent wife's cover was blown in retaliation. Evidence points to Scooter Libby, aid to Cheney as the source of the leak.

That is a Gestapo-like tactic, totally contradictory to the "Great America" we both belive in.

Also bear in mind that under the Bush Admin's protocols a US citizen can be labeled an enemy combatant and stripped of these rights you hold so dear, held without attorney or trial for indefinite periods.

These are but a few of the consequences of Bush's so-called War on Terror.

Jo Vale Tudo
16th September 04, 10:44 PM
There are sacrifices and consequences that must be made, especially in times of war. And its not "Bush's War on Terror" after 9/11, every decent American wanted to delcare war against terrorists. So quit making it sound like it was the Presidents fault that we have to fight terrorists in the first place or that Saddam's a terrorist dictator, or that some things will have to the change for the sake of security. Alot of these idiots hate President Bush more than they do Osama and Hussein. Why? Political propaganda by the left. Its sad how some people have no mental affinity for sacrifices.

The Mad Hatter
17th September 04, 12:20 PM
Well ALL know that Kerry is dick cheese. The REAL question on the table is who is LESS of a dick cheese. Kerry or Bush? Whoever the nation thinks is the lesser of these two corrupt men will get the office.

It is so sad that it seems like ALL our elections are turning into a contest of who is going to do the least amount of damage to the country in a gang crooks and spineless douche nossels.

CaptShady
17th September 04, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by The Mad Hatter
It is so sad that it seems like ALL or elections are turning into a contest of who is going to do the least amount of damage to the countrey in a gang crooks and spineless douche nossels.

And it will remain that way, until voters stop voting for one of the 2 major parties. Let a libertarian get into office and see how quickly partisan fuckers get their shit together.

Zendetta
17th September 04, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Jo Vale Tudo
There are sacrifices and consequences that must be made, especially in times of war. And its not "Bush's War on Terror" after 9/11, every decent American wanted to delcare war against terrorists. So quit making it sound like it was the Presidents fault that we have to fight terrorists in the first place or that Saddam's a terrorist dictator, or that some things will have to the change for the sake of security. Alot of these idiots hate President Bush more than they do Osama and Hussein. Why? Political propaganda by the left. Its sad how some people have no mental affinity for sacrifices.

Sounds like I touched a nerve there Jo. I'd rather find common ground between us than shout at each other over a canyon of misunderstanding.

I am not blaming the pres for terror, although I do feel there was a clear pattern of negligence on the part of the Bush admin before 9/11.

I AM blaming his administration for the nonsense that the war has spawned, such as the reduction of legitimate freedoms (like the right to an attorney and trial) and the totally ruthless exposing of CIA agent Valerie Plame for the purposes of political retaliation. You have not responded to these points, especially the second one.

If Clinton had done these things I think you would be freaking out, and with great justification. And no doubt many so-called liberals would be rationalizing it.

Where do you get the idea that "these idiots" hate Bush more than Bin Laden or Hussein? I doubt it is from talking to them directly; I strongly suspect it is a reaction to the political propaganda that YOU are taking in.

At any rate, living in the SF Bay area as I do, I am certain I have to deal with this general type of anti-american attitude alot more than you do. I try hard to combat it and bring some balance into the situation. This country needs more open and frank discussion, and less partisan dogma. That goes for both sides.

In regards to what makes this country great, Bush talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk.

Jo Vale Tudo
18th September 04, 01:57 AM
First, I said "alot of these idiots" not ALL of them. Not everyone voting against Bush is an uninformed idiot who hates Bush more than Hussein or bin Laden. Yes I have talked to many of these people directly. Most of them are uninformed and have the similiar reasons, their sources being celebrities and what their friends say. And I did respond to your points about the "reduction of legitimate freedom" and I will be the first to admit that neither Bush or his administration is perfect. I'm just trying to express why I find no reasons to vote against President Bush or hate him for that matter. The pros outweigh the cons.

I also apologize if I sounded a bit rude or brash towards you. I too would like to find a common ground between other citizens instead of just arguing all the time.

Zendetta
18th September 04, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Jo Vale Tudo
I also apologize if I sounded a bit rude or brash towards you. I too would like to find a common ground between other citizens instead of just arguing all the time.

Nothing to apologize for Jo; I didn't take it as rude, brash, or at all personally offensive. Even if I had, that'd be OK too.

In regard to "those idiots", I think you should consider the following: if they bitch about Bush more the OBL or Saddam, it is at least in part because they simply intend to hold the US president to a higher standard than those villains. Think about it from that perspective for while and their weird opnions might start to make a little more sense.

Specifically, what you have not adequately responded to is the issue that high placed members of the Bush Admin blew the cover of a CIA operative out of retaliation for the fact that her husband was publicly challenging their claims of Iraqi WMDs.

I feel that this is relevant because:
- this thread's subject seems to rationalize the invasion based on expectations of finding WMDs

- many of us felt that WMDs were a bogus reason for an obviously problematic invasion and occupation.

- Some people vocally challenged those assessments before the war

- Some of those people were intensely harrassed (in an underhanded and patently illegal manner) for challenging the Bush party line

- Some of Bush's responses to the war on terror allow US citizens to be declared enemy combatants, held without attorney, and tried by military tribunal. Major erosion of key rights enshrined in our constitution.

- Again, I posit that if a democrat did this stuff, you would be FREEKING THE FUCK OUT.

Jo Vale Tudo
19th September 04, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by Zendetta
Nothing to apologize for Jo; I didn't take it as rude, brash, or at all personally offensive. Even if I had, that'd be OK too.

In regard to "those idiots", I think you should consider the following: if they bitch about Bush more the OBL or Saddam, it is at least in part because they simply intend to hold the US president to a higher standard than those villains. Think about it from that perspective for while and their weird opnions might start to make a little more sense.

Specifically, what you have not adequately responded to is the issue that high placed members of the Bush Admin blew the cover of a CIA operative out of retaliation for the fact that her husband was publicly challenging their claims of Iraqi WMDs.

I feel that this is relevant because:
- this thread's subject seems to rationalize the invasion based on expectations of finding WMDs

- many of us felt that WMDs were a bogus reason for an obviously problematic invasion and occupation.

- Some people vocally challenged those assessments before the war

- Some of those people were intensely harrassed (in an underhanded and patently illegal manner) for challenging the Bush party line

- Some of Bush's responses to the war on terror allow US citizens to be declared enemy combatants, held without attorney, and tried by military tribunal. Major erosion of key rights enshrined in our constitution.

- Again, I posit that if a democrat did this stuff, you would be FREEKING THE FUCK OUT.

This thread wasn't mean to rationalize any invasion or WMDS. The quotes were suppose to show that it was understood at the time that Saddam was percieved to be a threat, and the US neutralized the percieved threat that Saddam posed. It that at one point the government was united against threats both within and without, and that for a period the US was in fact united in a way we haven't seen in a long time.

And many of us also feel, regardless if we didnt find any active stockpile of WMDs, freeing Iraq from Saddam comes with other advantages as well. Stabilizing the country will help us regulate terrorists better in the Middle East. Iraqians will no longer have to live in terror of Saddam and his regime (and yes, many of us do care about people outside the United States this strongly)

I don't feel that my constitutional rights are being threathened by the guidelines of the Patriot Act, and I speak for many others as well. Yes, I can understand why others would also feel the same way you do. But I still stand behind it. That issue becomes a matter of opinion.

What difference would it make if a Democrat or a Republican takes out the Saddam Hussein Regime? Nothing! One less madman in the world. So your assumption of me "freaking out" if a Democrat President went to war against Saddam is incorrect.

Zendetta
21st September 04, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Jo Vale Tudo
This thread wasn't mean to rationalize any invasion or WMDS. The quotes were suppose to show that it was understood at the time that Saddam was percieved to be a threat, and the US neutralized the percieved threat that Saddam posed. It that at one point the government was united against threats both within and without, and that for a period the US was in fact united in a way we haven't seen in a long time.

And many of us also feel, regardless if we didnt find any active stockpile of WMDs, freeing Iraq from Saddam comes with other advantages as well. Stabilizing the country will help us regulate terrorists better in the Middle East. Iraqians will no longer have to live in terror of Saddam and his regime (and yes, many of us do care about people outside the United States this strongly)

I don't feel that my constitutional rights are being threathened by the guidelines of the Patriot Act, and I speak for many others as well. Yes, I can understand why others would also feel the same way you do. But I still stand behind it. That issue becomes a matter of opinion.

What difference would it make if a Democrat or a Republican takes out the Saddam Hussein Regime? Nothing! One less madman in the world. So your assumption of me "freaking out" if a Democrat President went to war against Saddam is incorrect.


You are still missing, or avoiding, my point by a mile here, Jo. Let me know if you want me to restate it.