Hey... democrats...

GeorgeAllen

Paytonlives wrote:

Hey Dennison, Are you at all suprised we havent been hit in 4 years? I guess thats just pure luck

Paytonlives, with all the "orange alerts" or whatever kind of crap the Homeland Security office has placed us on in the past four years, you would think it's "pure luck" we havent been hit yet, wouldn't you? The Bush administration is far more pessimistic than you are in regard to our readiness and preparedness against further attacks. In any event, I think this administration is doing SOME things right. The trouble is, our ability to actually stop terrorism and protect our homeland is severely hampered by this travesty in Iraq that has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. Imagine if we had stayed out of Iraq, but spent the money chasing actual terrorists! Bin Laden, the Saudi Arabian who is hiding in Pakistan or Afghanistan (who also, according to the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has absolutely no documented connection to Hussein or Iraq), remains at large. I believe we could have killed him if we had spent our resources on him instead of on Hussein. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were Saudi Arabian with direct ties to Al Qaida and Bin Laden. No wonder the Bush administration keeps us on constant alert. They've pissed away our resources in Iraq, and in the meantime, we're losing the war on terror.

Paytonlives

GeorgeAllen wrote:

Paytonlives wrote:

Hey Dennison, Are you at all suprised we havent been hit in 4 years? I guess thats just pure luck

Paytonlives, with all the "orange alerts" or whatever kind of crap the Homeland Security office has placed us on in the past four years, you would think it's "pure luck" we havent been hit yet, wouldn't you? The Bush administration is far more pessimistic than you are in regard to our readiness and preparedness against further attacks. In any event, I think this administration is doing SOME things right. The trouble is, our ability to actually stop terrorism and protect our homeland is severely hampered by this travesty in Iraq that has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. Imagine if we had stayed out of Iraq, but spent the money chasing actual terrorists! Bin Laden, the Saudi Arabian who is hiding in Pakistan or Afghanistan (who also, according to the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has absolutely no documented connection to Hussein or Iraq), remains at large. I believe we could have killed him if we had spent our resources on him instead of on Hussein. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were Saudi Arabian with direct ties to Al Qaida and Bin Laden. No wonder the Bush administration keeps us on constant alert. They've pissed away our resources in Iraq, and in the meantime, we're losing the war on terror.

Right out of the liberal playbook #deadhorse

Ya see Dennison terrorist are stupid enough to go to Iraq and get killed there!!! NOT ON USA SOIL

GrizWhiz

Paytonlives wrote:

GeorgeAllen wrote:

Paytonlives wrote:

Hey Dennison, Are you at all suprised we havent been hit in 4 years? I guess thats just pure luck

Paytonlives, with all the "orange alerts" or whatever kind of crap the Homeland Security office has placed us on in the past four years, you would think it's "pure luck" we havent been hit yet, wouldn't you? The Bush administration is far more pessimistic than you are in regard to our readiness and preparedness against further attacks. In any event, I think this administration is doing SOME things right. The trouble is, our ability to actually stop terrorism and protect our homeland is severely hampered by this travesty in Iraq that has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. Imagine if we had stayed out of Iraq, but spent the money chasing actual terrorists! Bin Laden, the Saudi Arabian who is hiding in Pakistan or Afghanistan (who also, according to the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has absolutely no documented connection to Hussein or Iraq), remains at large. I believe we could have killed him if we had spent our resources on him instead of on Hussein. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were Saudi Arabian with direct ties to Al Qaida and Bin Laden. No wonder the Bush administration keeps us on constant alert. They've pissed away our resources in Iraq, and in the meantime, we're losing the war on terror.

Right out of the liberal playbook #deadhorse

Ya see Dennison terrorist are stupid enough to go to Iraq and get killed there!!! NOT ON USA SOIL

In case you haven't noticed, they have found a more conveniently located place to kill Americans. They were not in Iraq until we invaded.

GeorgeAllen

Paytonlives wrote:

Right out of the liberal playbook #deadhorse

In the first place, I'm not a liberal. I believe in a strong and effective military. I would wholeheartedly support flooding Pakistan and Afganistan with American troops to smoke out and kill Bin Laden. Is that too liberal for you? I would even support a beefed up military presence in Saudi Arabia if: (1) there were any evidence of Bin Laden or other Al Qaida slipping back-and-forth across the Saudi border, and (2) if we could effectively crack down on the terrorist cells harbored in that country, given that Bin Laden and almost every single 9-11 hijacker was from Saudi Arabia. Is that too liberal for you.

In the second place, I take the dead horse symbol as a concession on your part that everything I said is boring fact. I can take a hint. Thanks for the acknowledgement!

grizonbob

GrizWhiz wrote:

Paytonlives wrote:

GeorgeAllen wrote:

Paytonlives wrote:

Hey Dennison, Are you at all suprised we havent been hit in 4 years? I guess thats just pure luck

Paytonlives, with all the "orange alerts" or whatever kind of crap the Homeland Security office has placed us on in the past four years, you would think it's "pure luck" we havent been hit yet, wouldn't you? The Bush administration is far more pessimistic than you are in regard to our readiness and preparedness against further attacks. In any event, I think this administration is doing SOME things right. The trouble is, our ability to actually stop terrorism and protect our homeland is severely hampered by this travesty in Iraq that has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. Imagine if we had stayed out of Iraq, but spent the money chasing actual terrorists! Bin Laden, the Saudi Arabian who is hiding in Pakistan or Afghanistan (who also, according to the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has absolutely no documented connection to Hussein or Iraq), remains at large. I believe we could have killed him if we had spent our resources on him instead of on Hussein. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were Saudi Arabian with direct ties to Al Qaida and Bin Laden. No wonder the Bush administration keeps us on constant alert. They've pissed away our resources in Iraq, and in the meantime, we're losing the war on terror.

Right out of the liberal playbook #deadhorse

Ya see Dennison terrorist are stupid enough to go to Iraq and get killed there!!! NOT ON USA SOIL

In case you haven't noticed, they have found a more conveniently located place to kill Americans. They were not in Iraq until we invaded.

from: www.husseinandterror.com

Paytonlives

GeorgeAllen wrote:

Paytonlives wrote:

Right out of the liberal playbook #deadhorse

In the first place, I'm not a liberal. I believe in a strong and effective military. I would wholeheartedly support flooding Pakistan and Afganistan with American troops to smoke out and kill Bin Laden. Is that too liberal for you? I would even support a beefed up military presence in Saudi Arabia if: (1) there were any evidence of Bin Laden or other Al Qaida slipping back-and-forth across the Saudi border, and (2) if we could effectively crack down on the terrorist cells harbored in that country, given that Bin Laden and almost every single 9-11 hijacker was from Saudi Arabia. Is that too liberal for you.

In the second place, I take the dead horse symbol as a concession on your part that everything I said is boring fact. I can take a hint. Thanks for the acknowledgement!

WRONG

The dead horse is bacause EVERYTHING you said is exactly what Al Sharpton or John Kerry would. RIGHT OUT OF THE LIBERAL PLAYBOOK- The one that dosent work.

As far as Saudi and Afg. My complains with libs is that if the USA would have done EXACTLY what you said they would BITCH that the US did nothing about saddam... THE DORKS always look for the worst possible happening and pray (If they do that) that something bad happens so that President Bush looks bad.

The libs remind me of the kid that cant ever win by being better so they make the other kids look bad.

Mabey you are not a lib but I I bet if the USA had done what you wanted, you would be one of the ones sitting here bitching about Saddam RIGHT NOW.

GrizWhiz

As far as Saudi and Afg. My complains with libs is that if the USA would have done EXACTLY what you said they would BITCH that the US did nothing about saddam...payton if you believe this, then you're beliefs are not even remotely connected with reality. So-called libs, as you call them, did not call for Saddam's removal. You are re-writing history here. #naughty

Not at all convincing.

GeorgeAllen

Paytonlives wrote:

The dead horse is bacause EVERYTHING you said is exactly what Al Sharpton or John Kerry would. RIGHT OUT OF THE LIBERAL PLAYBOOK- The one that dosent work.

Paytonlives, you are so misguided, but I believe you believe you are right. That makes an honest man out of you. For your information, I don't use what you call "THE LIBERAL PLAYBOOK." Who cares about Al Sharpton or John Kerry? I'm following the playbook of Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, and Republican Representative Ron Paul of Texas, for God's sake. Can you take a look at their words below and then please explain what their views have to do with a "liberal playbook"? Again, I don't believe war is political. It's either right or wrong. These mainstream Republican leaders say it's wrong. Can you explain? Teach us.

Hagel Says Iraq War Looking Like Vietnam
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL

WASHINGTON Aug 21, 2005 (AP)— A leading Republican senator and prospective presidential candidate said Sunday that the war in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago.

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq.

Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the Pentagon is preparing.

"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."

Hagel said "stay the course" is not a policy. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq … we're not winning," he said.

from issue: 1/31/2003
An Anti-War Republican
An Interview with Congressman Ron Paul

The Texas Observer visited with Ron Paul at his district office in Freeport on the Gulf Coast in late December.

Texas Observer:
Is it inevitable we will go to war with Iraq?

Ron Paul:
I would say the odds are 98 percent. Only a miracle will save us from committing this overt act of aggression. I think this will be a gift for Osama bin Laden. He will be the beneficiary of it. He hates Saddam Hussein. He has a better chance of getting one of his men [in power] after we cause a lot of disruption over there. And besides, his recruiting operation is going to get a real boost. We are going to prove to many Muslims around the world exactly what he has been telling them all along, that we are over there to dominate, to control, and to get the oil. I think we have fallen into that trap.

Texas Observer:
Why haven’t more people seen through this effort to link Hussein to the war on terrorism?

Ron Paul:
It seems that those who advise the president, those who control foreign policy, need another war for various reasons: whether it has to do with the oil or this principle that we are such good people that we know what is best; our views should dominate. I think they believe it almost like a religion. What has happened is that they have been able to control the propaganda. Even if there are some in Washington who have questioned this–and many of them did question it–the propaganda has been so powerful. All [Congress] had to do was look at the polls and say, "Oh, the polls show that we must do this." I have told others, and I am convinced that if Bill Clinton was doing exactly what the president is doing today, I bet I wouldn’t be a lonely Republican. I bet I would have a lot of Republican supporters on my side.... But now it’s a Republican president, and he can do no wrong.

Paytonlives

GrizWhiz wrote:

As far as Saudi and Afg. My complains with libs is that if the USA would have done EXACTLY what you said they would BITCH that the US did nothing about saddam...payton if you believe this, then you're beliefs are not even remotely connected with reality. So-called libs, as you call them, did not call for Saddam's removal. You are re-writing history here. #naughty

Not at all convincing.

GRUNT WHIZ

Having trouble reading again?

My point is that libs are half empty people. Listen closely!!!

If the USA had gone after OBL in Paki or Afg. The same libs would be complaining that Bush is doing nothing about a nasty dictator. THAT WAS MY POINT. I DID NOT SAY THATS WHAT THEY SAID!!!!

Paytonlives

GeorgeAllen wrote:

Paytonlives wrote:

The dead horse is bacause EVERYTHING you said is exactly what Al Sharpton or John Kerry would. RIGHT OUT OF THE LIBERAL PLAYBOOK- The one that dosent work.

Paytonlives, you are so misguided, but I believe you believe you are right. That makes an honest man out of you. For your information, I don't use what you call "THE LIBERAL PLAYBOOK." Who cares about Al Sharpton or John Kerry? I'm following the playbook of Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, and Republican Representative Ron Paul of Texas, for God's sake. Can you take a look at their words below and then please explain what their views have to do with a "liberal playbook"? Again, I don't believe war is political. It's either right or wrong. These mainstream Republican leaders say it's wrong. Can you explain? Teach us.

Hagel Says Iraq War Looking Like Vietnam
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL

WASHINGTON Aug 21, 2005 (AP)— A leading Republican senator and prospective presidential candidate said Sunday that the war in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago.

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq.

Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the Pentagon is preparing.

"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."

Hagel said "stay the course" is not a policy. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq … we're not winning," he said.

from issue: 1/31/2003
An Anti-War Republican
An Interview with Congressman Ron Paul

The Texas Observer visited with Ron Paul at his district office in Freeport on the Gulf Coast in late December.

Texas Observer:
Is it inevitable we will go to war with Iraq?

Ron Paul:
I would say the odds are 98 percent. Only a miracle will save us from committing this overt act of aggression. I think this will be a gift for Osama bin Laden. He will be the beneficiary of it. He hates Saddam Hussein. He has a better chance of getting one of his men [in power] after we cause a lot of disruption over there. And besides, his recruiting operation is going to get a real boost. We are going to prove to many Muslims around the world exactly what he has been telling them all along, that we are over there to dominate, to control, and to get the oil. I think we have fallen into that trap.

Texas Observer:
Why haven’t more people seen through this effort to link Hussein to the war on terrorism?

Ron Paul:
It seems that those who advise the president, those who control foreign policy, need another war for various reasons: whether it has to do with the oil or this principle that we are such good people that we know what is best; our views should dominate. I think they believe it almost like a religion. What has happened is that they have been able to control the propaganda. Even if there are some in Washington who have questioned this–and many of them did question it–the propaganda has been so powerful. All [Congress] had to do was look at the polls and say, "Oh, the polls show that we must do this." I have told others, and I am convinced that if Bill Clinton was doing exactly what the president is doing today, I bet I wouldn’t be a lonely Republican. I bet I would have a lot of Republican supporters on my side.... But now it’s a Republican president, and he can do no wrong.

And I can show you quotes FROM EVERY DEMOCRAT that thought going to Iraq was the right thing to do. Now whos trying to change history? Whats your point?

GeorgeAllen

Paytonlives wrote:

And I can show you quotes FROM EVERY DEMOCRAT that thought going to Iraq was the right thing to do. Now whos trying to change history? Whats your point?

Paytonlives, you just MADE my point. The fallacy is in your tendancy to classify Republicans and conservatives as supporters of the Iraq war, and Democrats and liberals as opponents of the war. Get it now? Thank you.

Paytonlives

GrizWhiz wrote:

As far as Saudi and Afg. My complains with libs is that if the USA would have done EXACTLY what you said they would BITCH that the US did nothing about saddam...payton if you believe this, then you're beliefs are not even remotely connected with reality. So-called libs, as you call them, did not call for Saddam's removal. You are re-writing history here. #naughty

Not at all convincing.

IM REWRITING HISTORY????

"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.

"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 Sens. 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 the 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 seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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 alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (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. "[W]ithout 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 has 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.

IS THAT ENOUGH OR SHOULD I FIND SOME MORE?

ALPHAGRIZ1 · eGriz Lifer Joined: 30 Jun 2004 Posts: 6162 2 eGriz Bucks

Why go after OBL when he has been neutered? Going after somebody like him is not only a waste of time and lives, but doesn't really serve a purpose.

Isn't that money better spent in New Orleans or better yet in Iraq?

Re/MaxGriz

Don't ask the Dems why "they" didn't go after OBL. Bush forgot about him after about a year, Iraq became the new prize. Iran's next, keep a war infront of the American people so they slowly forget who actually attacked us on 9/11.

The money spent in Iraq is better spent in New Orleans. Keep your tax dollars in America, not a country with a majority of people that want us out.

Paytonlives

Re/MaxGriz wrote:

Don't ask the Dems why "they" didn't go after OBL. Bush forgot about him after about a year, Iraq became the new prize. Iran's next, keep a war infront of the American people so they slowly forget who actually attacked us on 9/11.

The money spent in Iraq is better spent in New Orleans. Keep your tax dollars in America, not a country with a majority of people that want us out.

Re/MaxGriz

No conservative "grab bag" response Payton?

GrizWhiz

Paytonlives wrote:

GrizWhiz wrote:

As far as Saudi and Afg. My complains with libs is that if the USA would have done EXACTLY what you said they would BITCH that the US did nothing about saddam...payton if you believe this, then you're beliefs are not even remotely connected with reality. So-called libs, as you call them, did not call for Saddam's removal. You are re-writing history here. #naughty

Not at all convincing.

IM REWRITING HISTORY????

"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.

"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 Sens. 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 the 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 seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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 alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (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. "[W]ithout 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 has 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.

IS THAT ENOUGH OR SHOULD I FIND SOME MORE?

I don't find any quotes in there that say we should have short circuited the UN weapons inspections (which I think, if allowed to continue would have established no WMDs) and invaded Iraq. They were not a threat to us. They did not attack us on 9/11.

Paytonlives

Re/MaxGriz wrote:

No conservative "grab bag" response Payton?

Weve been down that road already

ALPHAGRIZ1 · eGriz Lifer Joined: 30 Jun 2004 Posts: 6162 2 eGriz Bucks

Re/MaxGriz wrote:

Don't ask the Dems why "they" didn't go after OBL. Bush forgot about him after about a year, Iraq became the new prize. Iran's next, keep a war infront of the American people so they slowly forget who actually attacked us on 9/11.

The money spent in Iraq is better spent in New Orleans. Keep your tax dollars in America, not a country with a majority of people that want us out.

I was hoping to skirt the Left/Right arguement. I could say Clinton had a chance to get OBL and he pissed that away. I am just wondering why everyone thinks OBl should be the guy when there are many other cowards......I mean terrorists that could use some killin.

ponezone

Re/MaxGriz wrote:

Don't ask the Dems why "they" didn't go after OBL. Bush forgot about him after about a year, Iraq became the new prize.

...don't tell that to the U.S. forces that are presently prowling the mountains in Afghanistan.