SweetHavok
13 years ago
"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators 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 th! e 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 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..."
-- 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 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

"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."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 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..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SweetHavok
13 years ago

I appreciate that you have served in Iraq and know that that almost all of our troops are out- but there are still some there I don't feel should have their lives in harm's way.

We went to war based on lies. It has cost us over one trillion dollars financialy. It has cost us lives. We were under no threat. 9/11 had no real Iraqi connection. We were told that the oil would offset the cost of orpay for that war. As you would agree, we got nothing of it. If Iraqis wanted freedom, they need to rise up and take it on their own.

Why do you think we needed to go there?

rfenst wrote:




Lies or bad intel?

I would go with bad intel, various intelligence agencies and not just our own came to the same conclusion that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction. And Husseins actions in kicking out UN weapons inspectors like, once, twice, three time............ multiple occasions did not help him stay in power.

Unfortunately there was no WMD's as we were led to believe, but there what I call MWD's or Mass Weapons of Destruction. Huge warehouses were found with row, after row, after row, all the way up to the rafters of weapons like AK-47's and 50 cal machine guns.
SweetHavok
13 years ago

I don't want to start bashing him and respect the fact that he served as OUR President, but I just think he was unsuited for the job and that others were running the show.

rfenst wrote:




Unsuited?

after WWII what other president had to face the issues on the scale that GWB had to go through. None. GWB made very tough decisions, right or wrong, and stuck to them, if he had wavered or flip flopped, then I would agree with you.
rfenst
13 years ago
#21

Even I believed there were weapons of mass destruction- certainly there were in fact some chemical and biological weapons and a nuclear program. I feel I was hood-winked into believing in a war with boots on the ground, which certainly should have been the absolute last resort.

If you substitute "Iran" for Iraq in all that you cited, attacking Iran right now would be appropriate. It supposedly is real close to nuclear missiles and certainly must have the technology for other types of mass weapons just like was alleged about Iraq. And, it has been a major destabilizing threat via Syria and several terrorist organizations. But, by the same token I think you would agree we don't belong attacking (yet), let alone putting boots on the ground,

I know you served proudly and I have tremendous respect for that. But, in hindsight I do not believe we just shouldn't have been their to the extent and length of time we were.
rfenst
13 years ago

Unsuited?

after WWII what other president had to face the issues on the scale that GWB had to go through. None. GWB made very tough decisions, right or wrong, and stuck to them, if he had wavered or flip flopped, then I would agree with you.

SweetHavok wrote:



Kennedy certainly had to face greater issues, but that is not the real issue here

I think Reagan and Bush senior were suited to be Presidents. I feel Bush II was unsuitable because of who he is and certainly not because he was a Republican.
SweetHavok
13 years ago

#21

I know you served proudly and I have tremendous respect for that. But, in hindsight I do not believe we just shouldn't have been their to the extent and length of time we were.

rfenst wrote:



We shot ourselves in the foot here, after we invaded we totally dismantled and disbanded the iraqi military. If we had just left Iran would have invaded Iraq. I recall hearing of a Iranian militia invading Iraq as well in the beginning of the war and U.S forces were sent to stop them.
rfenst
13 years ago

Unsuited?

after WWII what other president had to face the issues on the scale that GWB had to go through. None. GWB made very tough decisions, right or wrong, and stuck to them, if he had wavered or flip flopped, then I would agree with you.

SweetHavok wrote:



Kennedy certainly had to face greater issues, but that is not the real issue here

I think Reagan and Bush senior were suited to be Presidents. I feel Bush II was unsuitable because of who he is and certainly not because he was a Republican.
SweetHavok
13 years ago

Kennedy certainly had to face greater issues, but that is not the real issue here

I think Reagan and Bush senior were suited to be Presidents. I feel Bush II was unsuitable because of who he is and certainly not because he was a Republican.

rfenst wrote:




On Kennedy i respectfully disagree with you, but yes he did have crisis of his own , but at least IMO to a lesser extent.


On who he is? sorry you lost me here not sure where you are trying to say here.
ZRX1200
13 years ago
Nuclear weapons 90 miles south of the USA was less of a threat?

GWB was a bankers wet dream, and NWO approved.

Kennedy posed a threat to the banking cartel and the fed. Look where that got him.
SweetHavok
13 years ago
I'm well aware of the Cuban missile crisis and the possibility of going to war with the soviet union. But it was a crisis and not a war. Cooler heads prevailed on both sides so war was avoided.

with no sarcasm intended, =d> =d> =d> in what Kennedy did during his presidency

GWB on the other hand had many other issues to include

two separate wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

9/11

Katrina
Users browsing this topic