McCain Romney Huckabee Politics Personal Destruction Dole Electability Obama Clinton 2008 Election Polls Truth Rhinos

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Big Fat Liar Democrats. Yes the Democrats Said That!

GW lied! He betrayed our fears!
"The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

GW's 2003 Iraq doctrine is not pre-emption but is the same as Clinton's 1998 Iraq doctrine, namely Iraq, because Saddham started War when he invaded Kuwait and because of the danger of Saddham passing WMD to terrorists, must be forced, with or without the U.N., to keep the ceasefire agreement from the 1st Gulf War in 1991. If you don't believe me, believe the neocon Democrats in their own words.

Neocon Senator Hilary Clinton
"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...But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998." (October 10, 2002, Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clintonon S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use ofUnited States Armed Forces Against Iraq http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html)

Neocon President Bill Clinton
"Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action. In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, February 17, 1998)
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-042005.pdf

"Together, we also must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons -- and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf War. Now Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein: You cannot defy the will of the world. (Applause.) And when I say to him: You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again. (Applause.)" (President Clinton's 5th State of the Union Address - as delivered January 27, 1998 http://www.americanpolitics.info/clinton/speeches/sou98.shtml http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2iOVqYBqME)

"The United States has actively and consistently opposed Saddam because he has demonstrated the intent to threaten the stability of a region vital to our interests. A stable Middle East means we can better protect the free flow of oil, fight terrorism and build support for a comprehensive Middle East peace. There is no greater challenge to the region's stability and to America's security in that region than Saddam's reckless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. As President Clinton has said, the spread of these weapons to outlaw states, and from them to terrorists and international criminals, is one of the most dangerous security threats our people will face over the next generation. Other countries have weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam Husayn, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Not only against combatants, but against civilians. Not only against a foreign adversary, but against his own people. I have no doubt he will use them again if his capacity to rebuild his arsenal is left unchecked."-- Clinton's National Security Advisor Samuel Berger at the National Press Club, February 13, 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, Clinton Secretary of State, 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

Neocon Senator John Kerry
"If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." -- John Kerry, USA Today on 2/13/03
"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
"It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world....He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel. ...We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future." -- John Kerry 10/9/02 http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2004/10/say-anything.html
"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that and I disagree with the Governor [Howard Dean]." -- John Kerry, 12/15/03
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." -- John Kerry 12/20/03
TERRORISTS DON'T KILL HUMAN SHIELDS, BUSH DOES
IN 1998 DEMOCRATS SAY SADDHAM RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY CASUALTY:
"If Saddam is allowed to rebuild his arsenal unchecked, none of the region's children will be safe...But from Europe to the Persian Gulf, all agree on the bottom line: Saddam must allow the U.N. weapons inspectors to complete their mission with full and free access to any site they suspect maybe hiding material or information related to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs. That is what Saddam agreed to as a condition for ending the Gulf War way back in 1991...Saddam himself understands that the international community places a higher value on the lives of the Iraqi people than he does. That is why he uses innocent women and children as human shields, risking what we care about -- human lives -- to protect what he cares about -- his weapons. If force proves necessary to resolve this crisis, we will do everything we can to prevent innocent people from getting hurt. But make no mistake: Saddam Hussein must bear full responsibility for every casualty that results." Bill Clinton, February 20, 1998
"This is a crisis of Saddam's making. It can be unmade only when he can no longer threaten the international community with weapons of mass destruction."-- President Clinton, November 14, 1997. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/Policywatch/policywatch1998/334.htm

IN 2003 DEMOCRATS SAY BUSH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY CASUALTY:
"I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country." Senator Tom Daschle, March 18, 2003

"This may be a political year... but on this issue there can be no disunity. There can be no lack of cohesion. We stand united, Republicans and Democrats, determined to send as clear a message with as clear a resolve as we can articulate: Saddam Hussein's actions will not be tolerated. His willingness to brutally attack Kurds in northern Iraq and abrogate U.N. resolutions is simply unacceptable. We intend to make that point clear with the use of force... [Saddam] has to agree that there will be compliance with international law and the agreements that he signed in 1991. Period. Look, we have exhausted virtually [all] our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is, we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily. I don't know what purpose is served by attacking one another on this point. I mean, if ever there was a time for us to present a unified front to Iraq, this ought to be it” (Senator Tom Daschle (D, SD) responds to Senator Trent Lott's contention that Bill Clinton had no long-term plan for dealing with Iraq, February, 1998)

NEOCON PLAN FOR NEW AMERICAN CENTURY
NEOCON UNILATERALISM
"The United States remains resolved and ready to secure by whatever means necessary Iraq's full compliance with its commitment to destroy its weapons of mass destruction . . . I believe that if it [Iraq] does not keep its word this time, everyone would understand that then the United States and hopefully all of our allies would have the unilateral right to respond at a time, place and manner of our own choosing."-- President Clinton, February 23, 1998.

"Now, let's imagine the future. What if he [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? 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 . . . If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity -- even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." [remember Clinton did take and "ambiguous third route" by not disarming Saddam, and this led inexorably to 911]-- President Clinton in remarks to Pentagon personnel, February 17, 1998.

"We would welcome any action by the Security Council that makes clear Iraq's responsibilities. There would be utility in sending a clear message to the government of Iraq that it had better not violate the agreement to which it has just signed. But our position remains clear: We believe we have the authority under existing Security Council resolutions to take action if that action is necessary . . ."While we welcome a principled diplomatic solution, and we have been prepared to go the last extra mile for a diplomatic solution, it is a solution that has to work in terms of deeds and not just words."-- Bruce Riedel, Special Assistant to the President and senior Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs, the National Security Council during a briefing, February 26, 1998.
(http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/Policywatch/policywatch1998/334.htm).

We act in concert with the international community whenever possible; but do not hesitate to act unilaterally when necessary. Having decided (in the context of humanitarian and other interests) that use of military forces is appropriate, the decision on how they will be employed is based on two guidelines. First, our forces will have a clear mission and the means to achieve their objectives decisively. Second, as much as possible, we will seek the support and participation of our allies, friends, and relevant international institutions. When our vital interests are at stake, we are prepared to act alone.
(National Security Strategy of Clinton Administration in 1999,
http://www.cap.uni-muenchen.de/aktuell/positionen/2003_04_us_strategy.htm).

Sometimes the United States has to act alone, or at least has to act first. Sometimes we cannot let other countries have a veto on our foreign policy.
(President Bill Clinton, Oct 6, 1996, Presidential Debate between Clinton and Dole )

"THE PRESIDENT: If Iraq fails to comply this time to provide immediate, unrestricted, unconditional access to the weapons inspectors, there will be serious consequences. I have ordered our military to remain in the Persian Gulf. Our soldiers, our ships, our planes will stay there in force until we are satisfied that Iraq is complying--that Iraq is complying with its commitments.
Q Mr. President, if Iraq does not keep its word this time, do we go through this exercise of weeks and weeks and weeks again? THE PRESIDENT: I believe if it does not keep its word this time, everyone would understand that then the United States and hopefully all of our allies would have the unilateral right to respond at a time, place and manner of our own choosing. And I think that's enough for me to say about that at this time...Then we need to test the agreement and verify that the commitments which are made in writing are kept in fact. So trust should not have to be an issue here. If you have clarity, then you can verify. So over the next two days we have a very -- all Americans should have a positive reaction to the fact that we finally have a commitment to open all these sites and to let the inspectors finish their job. We need clarity. We need verification. And I intend to keep our forces at high levels of preparation in the Gulf in the near-term to see what happens in terms of honoring these obligations. Q Mr. President, Senator Lott says you lack a long-term strategy for handling Iraq. How do you respond to that, sir? THE PRESIDENT: Well, since 1991, our strategy has been to keep the sanctions on, keep Iraq from rebuilding its military might and threatening its neighbors, but to pursue this inspection system to end what is the biggest threat both to its neighbors and to others by indirection, which is the chemical, the biological, and the nuclear weapons program. That has been our strategy all along. Whether that should continue to be our strategy depends in no small measure I believe on whether this agreement is honored. Q Sir, is there any wiggle room -- Q Has Saddam capitulated, sir? THE PRESIDENT: I'll answer both questions. Q Has Saddam Hussein capitulated? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think he has admitted that he has to honor commitments he made back in '91. You know, I think that our tough response was essential to getting him to admit that. The Secretary General has conducted a hard mission. I am satisfied that he has done the best he can. And I am satisfied that we would not have this commitment to open all these spots had not the United States and our allies -- and there were lots of them, don't forget -- been prepared to go further and to take whatever actions were necessary.
Q Is there any wiggle room in this agreement? Because even before you spoke some of your critics predicted that you would buy an agreement that was not air-tight simply as a way out. THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it's obvious that I haven't looked for a way out here. What I have looked for is a way forward. The United States, because of our position in the world, is called upon to bring its power to bear when it's important to do so. But we also should have the self-confidence and the conscience to show forbearance as well as strength, and to do what is right. The objective is unassailable, and he has agreed to the objective, which is full and free and unfettered access." (February 23, 1998, White House Press Conference, Remarks by President Clinton on Iraq, The Oval Office, warns of "serious consequences" if Iraq does not complyhttp://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19980223-19873.html)
"I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein: You cannot defy the will of the world. (Applause.) And when I say to him: You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again. (Applause.)" (President Clinton's 5th State of the Union Address - as delivered January 27, 1998, http://www.americanpolitics.info/clinton/speeches/sou98.shtml)

NEOCON DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST
"Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region. The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life. My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership...I sign H.R. 4655 into law." (William J Clinton, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, October 31, 1998 http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/WF981102/epf104.htm).

"I further think we must do more about democracy. Ten years ago I said it ought to matter to us how people govern themselves because democracies by and large don't go to war with each other, don't sponsor terrorist acts against each other, and are more likely to be reliable partners, protect the environment, and abide by the law. Democracy is a stabilizing force. It provides a nonviolent means for resolving disputes. I believe that. And it's no accident that most of these terrorists come from non-democratic countries. If you live in a country where you're never required to take responsibility for yourself, where you never even have to ask whether there's something you should be doing to solve your own problems, then people are kept in a kind of a permanent state of collective immaturity and it becomes quite east for them to believe that someone else's success is the cause of their distress. Now I've already told you I think we ought to be doing more to help, but there's some people you can't help if they don't help themselves. And I think this is a very, very important point. I have seen so many instances where peoples simply did not have any reference point because they were never required to take responsibility for themselves. If your families had raised you and they were so worried that you were going to hurt yourself that from the time that you were six 'til the time it came time for you to go to Georgetown they never let out of house [never let outside your country], you would have still been six emotionally, if you had never been able to leave the house. That's what it's like if you never get to have a say in your own life. I also think it's important when countries make a decision to be democracies that we recognize we ought to help them. I just got back from Spain where King Juan Carlos and Mikhail Gorbachov sponsored a conference designed specifically to help countries succeed once they choose democracy. You've got to deliver economic growth and honest government, and it's not as easy as it sounds...Why has it been 1,000 years since there was a serious challenge mounted from reformist moderates? Except for Attaturk in Turkey, what Sadat wished to do and didn't live to do in Egypt, and what King Hussein did in Jordan. In 1991 he got everybody together and he said, "I'll give up some powers. I'll let you have a parliament, everybody can run, the fundamentalists can run, but here are the boundaries beyond which you can't step, because we're going to hold this country together." It is no accident that in the inner Middle East it is the most stable country now, because there is some popular expression of opinion and people have to take some responsibility for themselves
(William Jefferson ClintonGeorgetown UniversityNovember 7, 2001 http://www.conservativeaction.org/resources.php3?article=clintonspeech; see especially Clinton's Remarks on 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, in Letter I Democrats in 1998 Make Case for War in Iraq)

NEOCON SCLAIM IRAQ THE GREATEST THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY
Together, we also must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons -- and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf War. Now Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission.
I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein: You cannot defy the will of the world. (Applause.) And when I say to him: You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again. (Applause.)
President Clinton's 5th State of the Union Address - as delivered January 27, 1998
http://www.americanpolitics.info/clinton/speeches/sou98.shtml

"There is no greater challenge to the region's stability and to America's security in that region than Saddam's reckless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. As President Clinton has said, the spread of these weapons to outlaw states, and from them to terrorists and international criminals, is one of the most dangerous security threats our people will face over the next generation. Other countries have weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam Husayn, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Not only against combatants, but against civilians. Not only against a foreign adversary, but against his own people. I have no doubt he will use them again if his capacity to rebuild his arsenal is left unchecked."-- National Security Advisor Samuel Berger at the National Press Club, February 13, 1998.
"He [Saddam] has started two wars. He has invaded a country next door. He is a repeat offender, and he is the kind of a rogue state leader that is a threat not only to his neighborhood, but because he has possessed and would like to possess more weapons of mass destruction, he is a threat to our national security . . . And given the stakes, especially with weapons of mass destruction, the world cannot afford to let Saddam try again. That's why what we are doing is so important."-- Secretary of State Albright speaking at the University of South Carolina, February 19, 1998.
"Let me remind all of you what this whole crisis is about: that is, to make sure that Saddam Husayn is not in a position to threaten the international community with weapons of mass destruction."-- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at a press conference, November 20, 1997
(http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/Policywatch/policywatch1998/334.htm).

NEOCONS CLAIM SADDHAM THE NEXT HITLER
Madeline Albright, Secretary of State for Bill Clinton, in 1998 called Saddam the "next Hitler", and I am inclined to agree with her. Hitler (years after WWI) and Saddam (immediately after the Gulf War) broke the conditions of their country's surrender, but the only difference is that action against Hitler came too late to avert WWII and Pearl Harbor was nothing compared to 911.
MR. RUSSERT: We hear that argument from you now and from other Democrats, and yet five years ago when President Clinton was in office, his tone was very similar to President Bush’s. Let me show you February 17, 1998.(Videotape, February 17, 1998):PRES. BILL CLINTON: Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? 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 someday, some way, I guarantee you, he will use the arsenal.(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: That’s very—and two days after that, this is what Madeleine Albright said. “I can honestly tell you that I don’t think that the world has seen, except maybe since Hitler, someone who is quite as evil as Saddam Hussein. ...If you don’t stop a horrific dictator before he gets started too far— that he can do untold damage. ...If the world had been firmer with Hitler earlier, then chances are that we might not have needed to send Americans to Europe during the Second World War. So, my lesson out of all of this is deal with the problem at the time that you can and don’t step away from it thinking that it’ll go away.”Five years ago, and for four of those years there have been no inspectors in Iraq. Why not listen to Bill Clinton, listen to Madeleine Albright and deal with the problem now than delay it because it will only get worse?

MS. ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, I’ve never doubted the why of this issue. I have felt that what President Bush said and what Secretary Powell have said about why, that Saddam is a dreadful person and all that, I completely agree with and as you’ve pointed out said it myself. I think things are very different after 9/11, and my point here only is the following: Is that I believed President Bush when he told us that the war on terrorism is our major issue. And of all the various parts of Secretary Powell’s presentation, the link with al-Qaeda for me was the weakest. So I would be focusing much more attention on the war against terrorism, and for that we have to have international support. And that is being slowly dissipated as a result of some of the tactics of this administration. So it is not a matter of changing my mind about Saddam. I do believe that we had him in a box, that the no-fly zones are very wide, that there are ways to deal with him. I would never stop saying that, but I think we need to deal with terrorism and North Korea. They have the nuclear weapons.

MR. RUSSERT: Look, but The Washington Post on Wednesday said this, that after the tough talk by President Clinton, “...Mr. Clinton did fail to respond [in 1998]. Saddam Hussein had four years to strengthen his arsenal, even as the sanctions effectively collapsed. According to Mr. Blix and Western intelligence agencies, he illegally imported hundreds of new missile engines and rebuilt production facilities. He created drones and mobile biological laboratories and sought nuclear material from several nations.” With all that going on in the last five years, isn’t now the time to act?

MS. ALBRIGHT: Well, Saddam has to disarm. There’s no question about that. There’s absolutely none. We need a lot of international support for that, and I have no problem with that. I just—and I also do think that we actually responded fairly robustly in 1998. Life is very different before 9/11 and everybody, including The Washington Post, needs to remember that. And I think that what we have to do is to pursue this. I believe in the why. I think we—it is important to get the United Nations to support this and the international community because we can’t do the job either in Iraq or fighting terrorism without them [back in 1998, Albright said we can do it without them,]. And one other aspect here, Tim, that I think we should keep in mind. The U.S. cannot run the world alone. We don’t want to run the world alone. We’re not an imperial power. And ultimately we have to make sure that some international system is preserved to deal with the rogue nations of the world and the other problems that we have [for some reason, Madeline Albright didn't think so in her war against Serbians].

MR. RUSSERT: But if Mr. Blix comes back on Friday and says, “Saddam is still not cooperating,” and the French and the Russians and the Chinese say, “Well, you know, give him more time,” and President Bush says, “No, no, I had a resolution passed in November. I’ve drawn the sword. I’m using it. I’m going forward with”—what he calls— "the willing coalition without the U.N.,” would you support that?
MS. ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that they ought to try a bit more to get a resolution. I think they’ll get it. I cannot believe that the French would ever go against us on this ultimately. And I think, in the end, we, obviously, are going to have to go. It isn’t alone. There is a coalition of countries that’s going, but I think that it will ultimately be at a loss in many ways to a functioning system, and I also think, at this stage, our credibility is on the line. We have a lot of forces over there and that’s why I said I would support the president on it and I obviously would support our troops.

MR. RUSSERT: When you were advising President Clinton about Kosovo, he went forward without United Nations approval.

MS. ALBRIGHT: Well, we had NATO total approval of it and it was a NATO operation [false, America made up the bulk of the operation], and I spent every day talking to my allied partners, every single day we had a conference call about what was going on. So it was a very different aspect, and also there had been previous authorization under the U.N [there was also previous U.N. authorization for use of force against Iraq even before Resolution 1441]. But if ultimately you can’t make it work, then you do have to go a different route, and I do agree with those who are saying that the U.N. is being tested. It’s a combination of the U.N. and the U.S. in terms of how we want to see the future of the world operate.
I have to say this, Tim, I know that it’s very easy for those of us who are out to be critical of those who are in. And I remember how disturbed I used to get when I used to watch those that had preceded us criticizing us. The jobs are very, very hard, and I think that those people that are doing the jobs are doing the best they can but these are very hard decisions. And they need to stick together and try to figure out a way to present a united front. But I take my hat off to all those who are working these problems. They’re very hard problems to work with. [why then does she and her cohorts take every opportunity to make potshots at GW? and weakens America's front against terrorism by claiming GW's diplomacy not Saddam is responsible for War in Iraq?]
(http://www.msnbc.com/news/870638.asp?cp1=1).

NEOCON CLAIM OF TERRORIST CONNECTIONS WITH IRAQ
"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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 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..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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." 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." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, 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." - Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (2/18/98)
"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers." - AP story in the Washington Post (2/14/99)
"The liberation of Iraq is inevitable. When that day comes, and the whole truth about Saddam Hussein's regime spills out, we will be proud of the stand we took. And if our post-overthrow support of Iraq aids a transition to democracy, our pride should double. For democracies do not wage war against one another. Democracies do not allow their people to starve." - Sen. Bob Kerrey (9/29/99)

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell (prior to the U.S./Iraq war). He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad. He then opened a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan.
AMERICAN MILITARY REGIME CHANGE NEVER CREATED DEMOCRACY?
American military intervention never created democracy? Japan, Germany, Israel, Taiwan, S Korea. Can America create democracies in Arab states? Well, against the Sunni Islamists, Woolsey pointed out that the United States had always fought under the banner of democratic ideals and individual liberty. On the whole we had done well. In 1917, there were but ten democracies in the world and today there were 120 either free or mostly free states. One-half of the non-Arab, Muslim-predominant states are democracies. So the job could be done. Bush Warns Terrorists Not to Take Advantage of Election Debacle NewsMax.com Wires, Thursday, Dec. 7, 2000 AUSTIN, Texas (UPI) – President-elect Bush waded into foreign affairs Wednesday, received his second White House security briefing and huddled with his chief foreign policy adviser, Condoleezza Rice. Bush said terrorists should not make any moves against the United States during the political uncertainly surrounding the presidential election. "I have all the confidence in the world that the Clinton administration and the next administration, which I hope is the Bush administration, will do whatever it takes to send a chilling signal to terrorists that we'll protect our property and our people," Bush told reporters during a brief appearance before cameras alongside Rice. "The warning ought to be that, as we decide this election, people should not try to take advantage of our nation." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/12/6/163850.shtml

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

McCain is an entrenched politician, not a candidate of substantive change. McCain's public attacks against President Bush for waterboarding techniques is inappropriate to bring up in an internationally televised forum. McCain may or may not mean to betray our country's national intelligence secrets, but who honestly would trust McCain to not blab to the world other national secrets?