Senator Levin is the second ranked Dem on the Intelligence Committee.
On Monday, Levin appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC and made the following declaration:
"There was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that."
On December 16, 2001, in an appearance on CNN, Levin himself called for regime change in Iraq. Levin would not say whether he supported making Hussein's Iraq the "next target" after Afghanistan, but he did say this:
"The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as he [Saddam Hussein] is in power."
see full article at :
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 1qbked.asp
Saddam had Nukes --- Sen. Carl Levin (D)
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
so you were wrong, just say so, we'll forgive you.
but , hey, forget the past.
don't want to have to spend the rest of your life covering for mistaken ideas?
wanna have a better chance at being correct in the future?
wanna gloat with the rest of us self-righteous bastards?
get the full story at http://www.wamu.org/
(national public radio )
but , hey, forget the past.
don't want to have to spend the rest of your life covering for mistaken ideas?
wanna have a better chance at being correct in the future?
wanna gloat with the rest of us self-righteous bastards?
get the full story at http://www.wamu.org/
(national public radio )
More "Dem Lies" of Interest:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/col ... 7f8de.html
Excerpts:
"I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors, but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
? Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York at a Jan. 22, 2003, press conference
"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."
? Floor statement of Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Oct. 10, 2002
"Urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
? Text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, Jan. 28, 1998, co-sponsored by Democrats Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, Max Cleland, John Kerry and Robert Byrd, among others
Marco
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/col ... 7f8de.html
Excerpts:
"I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors, but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
? Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York at a Jan. 22, 2003, press conference
"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."
? Floor statement of Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Oct. 10, 2002
"Urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
? Text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, Jan. 28, 1998, co-sponsored by Democrats Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, Max Cleland, John Kerry and Robert Byrd, among others
Marco
Saddam had Nukes --- Sen. Carl Levin (D)
GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
If I had been shown just the data that pointed to Sadam having Nukes (and
not all the other data that either refuted or questioned the accuracy of
that information), then yes, I too would worry about Saddam having Nukes.
Since it was the white house that was providing that information after the
non-message information had been redacted, then yes, everyone, Dems
included, would be right to go after Sadam.
But your stating "Here are democrats that agreed with us, so
'nany-nany-boo-boo' we were right, and you were wrong" means nothing.
I can show you irrefutable evidence that everyone who has ever drunk water
has died. Does that mean water is bad for us? Does it mean that if I
hadn't drunk water from birth that I wouldn't die?
-Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 10:37 AM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Saddam had Nukes --- Sen. Carl Levin (D)
More "Dem Lies" of Interest:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/col ... SA111305.3
H.gurwitz.c47f8de.html
Excerpts:
"I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten
not only his neighbors, but the stability of the region and the world, a
very serious threat to the United States."
- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York at a Jan. 22, 2003, press
conference
"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."
- Floor statement of Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, vice chairman of
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Oct. 10, 2002
"Urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to
respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs."
- Text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, Jan. 28, 1998, co-sponsored by
Democrats Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, Max Cleland, John Kerry and Robert
Byrd, among others
Marco
If I had been shown just the data that pointed to Sadam having Nukes (and
not all the other data that either refuted or questioned the accuracy of
that information), then yes, I too would worry about Saddam having Nukes.
Since it was the white house that was providing that information after the
non-message information had been redacted, then yes, everyone, Dems
included, would be right to go after Sadam.
But your stating "Here are democrats that agreed with us, so
'nany-nany-boo-boo' we were right, and you were wrong" means nothing.
I can show you irrefutable evidence that everyone who has ever drunk water
has died. Does that mean water is bad for us? Does it mean that if I
hadn't drunk water from birth that I wouldn't die?
-Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 10:37 AM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Saddam had Nukes --- Sen. Carl Levin (D)
More "Dem Lies" of Interest:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/col ... SA111305.3
H.gurwitz.c47f8de.html
Excerpts:
"I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten
not only his neighbors, but the stability of the region and the world, a
very serious threat to the United States."
- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York at a Jan. 22, 2003, press
conference
"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."
- Floor statement of Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, vice chairman of
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Oct. 10, 2002
"Urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to
respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs."
- Text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, Jan. 28, 1998, co-sponsored by
Democrats Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, Max Cleland, John Kerry and Robert
Byrd, among others
Marco
?"Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion." ? Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., then the Democratic whip.
"The truth is that investigations of the intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world ? and that person was Saddam Hussein," George W. Bush 11/14/2005
"The truth is that investigations of the intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world ? and that person was Saddam Hussein," George W. Bush 11/14/2005
Marco Zee wrote:?"The truth is that (investigations of the intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only) one person (manipulated evidence and) misled (me)(the world) ? and that person was Saddam Hussein," George W. Bush 11/14/2005
was he wearing a skimpy dress and did he slip gw a roofy?
too bad there wasn't a 'Plan B' approved and available at the time!
in light of this deeply personal and embarrassing admission perhaps gw may want to reconsider his position on roe v. wade!
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
News Flash!! Republicans are Brainwashed and Revolt!!!!
The leftist-Clintinoid-LSD-water-spiker-mind-controllers (aka Democrats) have finally succeeded in getting to even the Republicans! Senate majority leader First, along with support of the Republicans, has demanded to know what the end-game in Iraq will be and, without a deadline, an idea of how that will come about. No future in riding a lame-duck's coattails, I suppose.
According to reliable resources that have advertised themslves to be God's truth on the Internet, the administration has threatened to use the nuclear option on the Senate--but a different kind from what the Senate has threatened to use to overide vetos.
marcoHeavyWater
According to reliable resources that have advertised themslves to be God's truth on the Internet, the administration has threatened to use the nuclear option on the Senate--but a different kind from what the Senate has threatened to use to overide vetos.
marcoHeavyWater
Speaking of deadlines, Saddam was given a deadline to reveal all of his WMD's, and did not do so. That's why the UN Security Council voted 16-0 on 1441 to find him in noncompliance with the previous 16 Resolutions, and which authorized military action against Saddam. Even after that he had 4 months to "come clean completely", and still did not do so.
It was Saddam's obligation to reveal all, not our obligation to find what he was hiding.
It was Clinton and the Dems who made it "official US policy" for Regime Change in Iraq back in 1998 (when W was Texas Governor)....and now these same Dems are crying that we were misled.....good grief.
Like I said before, IF Saddam had "come clean" as Quaddafi and South Africa has done, he would still be running Iraq....so please place the blame where blame belongs....on Saddam.
For the Dems to cry foul now is simple political shifting and calculation, not sincere outrage that they were "misled". Let's see which of these Dem leaders votes against funding for the troops first....I bet none that has presidential aspirations.
Marco (Still waiting to hear the "better Dem plan" for Iraq)
It was Saddam's obligation to reveal all, not our obligation to find what he was hiding.
It was Clinton and the Dems who made it "official US policy" for Regime Change in Iraq back in 1998 (when W was Texas Governor)....and now these same Dems are crying that we were misled.....good grief.
Like I said before, IF Saddam had "come clean" as Quaddafi and South Africa has done, he would still be running Iraq....so please place the blame where blame belongs....on Saddam.
For the Dems to cry foul now is simple political shifting and calculation, not sincere outrage that they were "misled". Let's see which of these Dem leaders votes against funding for the troops first....I bet none that has presidential aspirations.
Marco (Still waiting to hear the "better Dem plan" for Iraq)
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Very good point. International inspection teams, defense intelligence teams and other investigators on the ground were nearing the end of their searches for WMD (having found none) when Mr. Honesty yelled "time's up!" and unleashed shock and awe.Marco Zee wrote:Speaking of deadlines, Saddam was given a deadline to reveal all of his WMD's, and did not do so. That's why the UN Security Council voted 16-0 on 1441 to find him in noncompliance with the previous 16 Resolutions, and which authorized military action against Saddam. Even after that he had 4 months to "come clean completely", and still did not do so.
It was Saddam's obligation to reveal all, not our obligation to find what he was hiding.
It was Clinton and the Dems who made it "official US policy" for Regime Change in Iraq back in 1998 (when W was Texas Governor)....and now these same Dems are crying that we were misled.....good grief.
Like I said before, IF Saddam had "come clean" as Quaddafi and South Africa has done, he would still be running Iraq....so please place the blame where blame belongs....on Saddam.
For the Dems to cry foul now is simple political shifting and calculation, not sincere outrage that they were "misled". Let's see which of these Dem leaders votes against funding for the troops first....I bet none that has presidential aspirations.
Marco (Still waiting to hear the "better Dem plan" for Iraq)
Hear is the reality of the situation:
No matter who voted what, when and how, and no matter what Clinton did to brainwash the entire world, no matter who does or does not have a better plan...
BUSH is the President!
BUSH makes the calls!
AND HE, AND HE ALONE, is RESPONSIBLE for HIS DECISIONS!!
Please print this out and paste it to your forehead.
marcoIt'sEveryoneElse'sFault
Saddam had Nukes --- Sen. Carl Levin (D)
sigh...so Bush/Cheney/Rove/Feith/Libby managed to stampede Congress
into a resolution that said what? that the President was authorized
to enforce UN resolutions. Not that he was authorized to invade
whenever he felt like it. Then Saddam finally agrees to let the
inspectors back in, but Bush says "too late" and invades with the UN
and IAEA all saying "wait, wait, we can't find any WMD". So I would
say that this is very much Mr. Bush's war. As an American I hope for
success, but looks to me it like he screwed it up every possible way
and I see no reason to give him a free ride on being criticized for
it. - Hugh
into a resolution that said what? that the President was authorized
to enforce UN resolutions. Not that he was authorized to invade
whenever he felt like it. Then Saddam finally agrees to let the
inspectors back in, but Bush says "too late" and invades with the UN
and IAEA all saying "wait, wait, we can't find any WMD". So I would
say that this is very much Mr. Bush's war. As an American I hope for
success, but looks to me it like he screwed it up every possible way
and I see no reason to give him a free ride on being criticized for
it. - Hugh
not sayin' who wrote:Speaking of deadlines, Saddam was given a deadline to reveal all of his WMD's, and did not do so. That's why the UN Security Council voted 16-0 on 1441 to find him in noncompliance with the previous 16 Resolutions, and which authorized military action against Saddam. Even after that he had 4 months to "come clean completely", and still did not do so.
It was Saddam's obligation to reveal all, not our obligation to find what he was hiding.
It was Clinton and the Dems who made it "official US policy" for Regime Change in Iraq back in 1998 (when W was Texas Governor)....and now these same Dems are crying that we were misled.....good grief.
Like I said before, IF Saddam had "come clean" as Quaddafi and South Africa has done, he would still be running Iraq....so please place the blame where blame belongs....on Saddam.
For the Dems to cry foul now is simple political shifting and calculation, not sincere outrage that they were "misled". Let's see which of these Dem leaders votes against funding for the troops first....I bet none that has presidential aspirations.
'not sayin' who' (Still waiting to hear the "better Dem plan" for Iraq)
okay, i've got it ! i've finally nailed it !
somebody, not sayin' who, is channeling rob cordrey , senior political correspondant of the daily show.
really, it is uncanny!
that's funny right?
no?
well if rob cordrey is funny (he IS on the comedy channel)
and he sounds EXACTLY like you know who...then...?
oh, i forgot cordrey is ADMITTEDLY 'pulling our leg'.
darn, i keep getting mixed up about what i'm supposed to take seriously and when i' supposed to laugh...
but, if it has already been determined as fact that it is
that i (they) are expressing...not sayin' who wrote:not sincere outrage
then i guess i'm forced to seek out other perspectives...(?)
see - it's not my fault !
he (you know who) made me do it !
gotta go - my head is spinning too
Saddam had Nukes --- Sen. Carl Levin (D)
Nope, now it's the Congressional Republicans (with Democratic
collaboration) who are demanding milestones for getting out - cause
the Administration has no discernable plan. They recognize a no-
win situation when they see one. - Hugh
collaboration) who are demanding milestones for getting out - cause
the Administration has no discernable plan. They recognize a no-
win situation when they see one. - Hugh
Saddam had Nukes --- Sen. Carl Levin (D)
The problem is with terminology: "weapons of mass destruction" (this
odd locution comes from Soviet doctrine) encompass bugs, gas and
nukes. The intel said there were bugs and gas, but no nukes. But
Bush and company kept using highly questionable anecdotes about Niger
yellowcake and fudging with "WMD" to make it sound like U.S. cities
would be getting nuked. This doesn't mean I think that is an
improbably scenario - there are other reasons to fear an implosion of
housing prices in the DC metro area besides higher interest rates! I
think it's just a matter of time until there is a major (as opposed
to the "minor" anthrax cases) WMD event here. But the Bush team
pushed the intel beyond what it would support. Point is: invading
Iraq (with botched planning and execution of the post-conflict phase)
hasn't helped and has arguable made things worse. We are
manufacturing terrorists at a phenomenal rate over there, and sooner
or later another operation will succeed here. When - not if - we
leave Iraq, the insurgents will take credit, whether correctly or
not, and go on to destabilize other countries in the area. So why
shouldn't we elect McCain and ride Bush out of town on a rail for
being the worst president in U.S. history? It's about time
responsible Republicans took their party back from the shi'ites of
the right... - Hugh
odd locution comes from Soviet doctrine) encompass bugs, gas and
nukes. The intel said there were bugs and gas, but no nukes. But
Bush and company kept using highly questionable anecdotes about Niger
yellowcake and fudging with "WMD" to make it sound like U.S. cities
would be getting nuked. This doesn't mean I think that is an
improbably scenario - there are other reasons to fear an implosion of
housing prices in the DC metro area besides higher interest rates! I
think it's just a matter of time until there is a major (as opposed
to the "minor" anthrax cases) WMD event here. But the Bush team
pushed the intel beyond what it would support. Point is: invading
Iraq (with botched planning and execution of the post-conflict phase)
hasn't helped and has arguable made things worse. We are
manufacturing terrorists at a phenomenal rate over there, and sooner
or later another operation will succeed here. When - not if - we
leave Iraq, the insurgents will take credit, whether correctly or
not, and go on to destabilize other countries in the area. So why
shouldn't we elect McCain and ride Bush out of town on a rail for
being the worst president in U.S. history? It's about time
responsible Republicans took their party back from the shi'ites of
the right... - Hugh
Marco Zee wrote:?"Saddam Hussein was wearing a skimpy dress and that horndog clinton wanted to screw him too! (more like a paraphrase actually)
from today's wash post:
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) strongly criticized yesterday the White
House's new line of attack against critics of its Iraq policy, saying that
"the Bush administration must understand that each American has a
right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for
disagreeing with them."
... Bush has suggested
that critics are hurting the war effort, telling U.S. troops in Alaska on
Monday that critics "are sending mixed signals to our troops and the
enemy. And that's irresponsible."
Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran and a potential
presidential candidate in 2008, countered in a
speech to the Council of Foreign Relations that
the Vietnam War "was a national tragedy partly
because members of Congress failed their
country, remained silent and lacked the courage
to challenge the administrations in power until
it was too late."
"To question your government is not unpatriotic
-- to not question your government is
unpatriotic," Hagel said, arguing that 58,000
troops died in Vietnam because of silence by
political leaders. "America owes its men and
women in uniform a policy worthy of their
sacrifices."
Hagel said Democrats have an obligation to be
constructive in their criticism, but he accused
the administration of "dividing the country"
with its rhetorical tactics.
At one point, while answering a question from
the audience about Syria, Hagel suggested that
the Middle East is worse off after the invasion
because the administration failed to anticipate
the consequences of removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "You
could probably argue it is worse in many ways in the Middle East
because of consequences and ripple effects," he said.
Rumsfeld described an evolution of U.S. policy toward Iraq embraced by
Democrats and Republicans. He read several quotes from 1998 from
then-President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of State
Madeleine K. Albright and national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy"
Berger. They predicted that Hussein, if unchecked, would again use
weapons of mass destruction.
However, many of the comments cited by Rumsfeld were used to
justify continued sanctions on Iraq, not to invade it. Moreover, the
Clinton administration officials did not cite the problematic intelligence
that formed the core of the Bush administration's case for an invasion,
such as allegations that Iraq sought uranium in Africa and tried to
obtain aluminum tubes as part of a resurgent nuclear program.
Rumsfeld also pointed to congressional actions in 1998 and 2002 calling for Hussein's removal. But the 1998 law, signed by Clinton, said "nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to use of United States Armed Forces" to implement it.
mcelrah wrote:
So why shouldn't we elect McCain and ride Bush out of town on a rail for
being the worst president in U.S. history? It's about time
responsible Republicans took their party back from the shi'ites of the right... - Hugh
Paul Tjaden wrote:... in Wichita, Kansas .... I find ..."conservatives" who should more appropriately be classified as "extremists"...
a thought for those who might not otherwise vote republican in the next presidential election:[quote="gary"Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 12:14 pm ]
...if john mckain were to run with collin powell against anyone that the dems had put up in the last go around (or anyone new of no greater caliber)...my initial viewpoint would be that i would vote for these republicans if the character and independence they once appeared to exhibit still held. (btw, collen (sp?) is still in possession of his soul....right?)
personally, i'm beginning to feel that the polarization ... yada, yada, yada...all that stuff - has become the overall thing that bothers me the most... and the thing that i would most like to see addressed by a new administration. then possibly a lot of other things would fall in place in a reasonable fashion.
so, yep, next time around i wouldn't care which party backed what guy if i felt he could do something in that department.
would there be an overall gain for the country if, instead of voting for a democrat, someone such as McCain were to win and thereby wrest control of the republican party from 'shi'ites of the right' ?
would that not be a more effective way for 'non-republicans' to change things, on the whole, more to their liking?
the 'shi'ites of the right' might not be
nearly as effectively IF a dem were to win the presidency (?)
actually, marco, by his dismissiveness of McCain, planted the seed of this idea for me.
[ thanks marco ole buddy
]Marc wrote:
<<No matter who voted what, when and how, and no matter what Clinton did to brainwash the entire world, no matter who does or does not have a better plan...
BUSH is the President!
BUSH makes the calls!
AND HE, AND HE ALONE, is RESPONSIBLE for HIS DECISIONS!!>>
Marco's Reply: I agree completely...thanks for stating the super-obvious. BUSH IS TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS DECISIONS. DUH !!!
Now, aren't these back-sliding Dems who voted for the war responsible for their actions and decisions too? They are whining about the pre-war intel to cover their political butts from their anti-war base...pure and simple....no regards for national security or maximizing the effectiveness of the war effort or the morale of the troops. And if they can knock down Bush's poll numbers along the way, even better.
As of yesterday, Joe Liebermann stands by his vote and defends his decision to authorize the war, further calling for "biparisanship" on Iraq, instead of partisanship.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commen ... an_pf.html
Excerpt: "It is no surprise to my colleagues that I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the Senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I look back on it and as I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power ? a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face."
Of course, none of these "misled" Dems have demanded immediate withdrawal, or cutting off funding for the Iraq war, and similarly no one has come up with any POSITIVE AGENDA to improve the situation there....just more whining, complaining, and "I am a victim of Bush's lies" victimizations. They don't even attend anti-war rallies in DC.
All the Dems are good for is whining, complaining, and oh yes, obstructing....no ideas for the improvement of the country, unless you believe raising taxes and more spending is a "positive agenda" for the country (and they won't even admit to this agenda). The Dems have to attack Bush...they have NOTHING ELSE TO OFFER the American people. Pretty pathetic, but fun to watch.
Marco
<<No matter who voted what, when and how, and no matter what Clinton did to brainwash the entire world, no matter who does or does not have a better plan...
BUSH is the President!
BUSH makes the calls!
AND HE, AND HE ALONE, is RESPONSIBLE for HIS DECISIONS!!>>
Marco's Reply: I agree completely...thanks for stating the super-obvious. BUSH IS TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS DECISIONS. DUH !!!
Now, aren't these back-sliding Dems who voted for the war responsible for their actions and decisions too? They are whining about the pre-war intel to cover their political butts from their anti-war base...pure and simple....no regards for national security or maximizing the effectiveness of the war effort or the morale of the troops. And if they can knock down Bush's poll numbers along the way, even better.
As of yesterday, Joe Liebermann stands by his vote and defends his decision to authorize the war, further calling for "biparisanship" on Iraq, instead of partisanship.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commen ... an_pf.html
Excerpt: "It is no surprise to my colleagues that I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the Senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I look back on it and as I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power ? a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face."
Of course, none of these "misled" Dems have demanded immediate withdrawal, or cutting off funding for the Iraq war, and similarly no one has come up with any POSITIVE AGENDA to improve the situation there....just more whining, complaining, and "I am a victim of Bush's lies" victimizations. They don't even attend anti-war rallies in DC.
All the Dems are good for is whining, complaining, and oh yes, obstructing....no ideas for the improvement of the country, unless you believe raising taxes and more spending is a "positive agenda" for the country (and they won't even admit to this agenda). The Dems have to attack Bush...they have NOTHING ELSE TO OFFER the American people. Pretty pathetic, but fun to watch.
Marco
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
OK Marco, please explain one simple thing to me.Marco Zee wrote:Marc wrote:
<<No matter who voted what, when and how, and no matter what Clinton did to brainwash the entire world, no matter who does or does not have a better plan...
BUSH is the President!
BUSH makes the calls!
AND HE, AND HE ALONE, is RESPONSIBLE for HIS DECISIONS!!>>
Marco's Reply: I agree completely...thanks for stating the super-obvious. BUSH IS TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS DECISIONS. DUH !!!
Now, aren't these back-sliding Dems who voted for the war responsible for their actions and decisions too? They are whining about the pre-war intel to cover their political butts from their anti-war base...pure and simple....no regards for national security or maximizing the effectiveness of the war effort or the morale of the troops. And if they can knock down Bush's poll numbers along the way, even better.
As of yesterday, Joe Liebermann stands by his vote and defends his decision to authorize the war, further calling for "biparisanship" on Iraq, instead of partisanship.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commen ... an_pf.html
Excerpt: "It is no surprise to my colleagues that I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the Senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I look back on it and as I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power ? a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face."
Of course, none of these "misled" Dems have demanded immediate withdrawal, or cutting off funding for the Iraq war, and similarly no one has come up with any POSITIVE AGENDA to improve the situation there....just more whining, complaining, and "I am a victim of Bush's lies" victimizations. They don't even attend anti-war rallies in DC.
All the Dems are good for is whining, complaining, and oh yes, obstructing....no ideas for the improvement of the country, unless you believe raising taxes and more spending is a "positive agenda" for the country (and they won't even admit to this agenda). The Dems have to attack Bush...they have NOTHING ELSE TO OFFER the American people. Pretty pathetic, but fun to watch.
Marco
If you feel so absolutely strongly that the threat by Saddam was a "clear and present danger" to our very existance, then why the F%^K aren't you packing your bags and headed to the nearest recruitment station to go to Iraq yourself?
marc
Saddam had Nukes --- Sen. Carl Levin (D)
Cutting off funds and calling for immediate withdrawal as in the
Vietnam endgame was THE WORST possible way to conduct policy, made
necessary by the intransigence of the Nixon administration. The
Democrats are being responsible, recognizing that a precipitous
abandonment of Iraq would create more problems than it would solve.
It's Bush's war, he has to figure out how to clean up his mess. Let
him swing slowly, slowly in the wind.
As for tax-and-spend - that's better than borrow-and-spend, the
Republican position.
Hugh
Vietnam endgame was THE WORST possible way to conduct policy, made
necessary by the intransigence of the Nixon administration. The
Democrats are being responsible, recognizing that a precipitous
abandonment of Iraq would create more problems than it would solve.
It's Bush's war, he has to figure out how to clean up his mess. Let
him swing slowly, slowly in the wind.
As for tax-and-spend - that's better than borrow-and-spend, the
Republican position.
Hugh
Marc,
Hugh already tried to have me sign up for the military previously (you gotta keep up with all the postings). Try to come up with something a bit more original.
How about you answer my earlier question now that we agree that Bush is responsible for his actions and decisions:
Now, aren't these back-sliding Dems who voted for the war responsible for their actions and decisions too?
Or are you going to say that they were misled,..... and didn't have "all the info" that the President had.......more pathetic excuses for THEIR ACTIONS. Maybe it was "society's fault" that they did it.....that's their usual argument for the behavior of their criminal "political base".
Marco
Hugh already tried to have me sign up for the military previously (you gotta keep up with all the postings). Try to come up with something a bit more original.
How about you answer my earlier question now that we agree that Bush is responsible for his actions and decisions:
Now, aren't these back-sliding Dems who voted for the war responsible for their actions and decisions too?
Or are you going to say that they were misled,..... and didn't have "all the info" that the President had.......more pathetic excuses for THEIR ACTIONS. Maybe it was "society's fault" that they did it.....that's their usual argument for the behavior of their criminal "political base".
Marco
Big Lie Democrats
http://www.americanprowler.org/dsp_arti ... rt_id=9035
Big Lie Democrats
By Brandon Crocker
Published 11/17/2005 12:07:13 AM
Excerpt: When Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, he was convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and active WMD research and production programs. George Tenet, the Clinton appointed head of the CIA, told George W. Bush prior to the war that the case that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was "a slam dunk." Almost all of the Democratic members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, seeing much of the same intelligence reports given to the White House, and with direct access to the intelligence communities and raw intelligence data, agreed. The intelligence arms of most major foreign governments, including those that opposed the war, agreed. The UN concurred that Saddam had not accounted for stockpiles of WMD that were known to exist after the end of the first Gulf War. So, according to the U.S. Democratic leadership, there is only one logical conclusion that one can draw from the lack of WMD found in Iraq -- George W. Bush lied us into the war.
Big Lie Democrats
By Brandon Crocker
Published 11/17/2005 12:07:13 AM
Excerpt: When Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, he was convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and active WMD research and production programs. George Tenet, the Clinton appointed head of the CIA, told George W. Bush prior to the war that the case that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was "a slam dunk." Almost all of the Democratic members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, seeing much of the same intelligence reports given to the White House, and with direct access to the intelligence communities and raw intelligence data, agreed. The intelligence arms of most major foreign governments, including those that opposed the war, agreed. The UN concurred that Saddam had not accounted for stockpiles of WMD that were known to exist after the end of the first Gulf War. So, according to the U.S. Democratic leadership, there is only one logical conclusion that one can draw from the lack of WMD found in Iraq -- George W. Bush lied us into the war.
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Never saw a straight-forward answer from you on why you don't put your money where your mouth is and go to Iraq.Marco Zee wrote:Marc,
Hugh already tried to have me sign up for the military previously (you gotta keep up with all the postings). Try to come up with something a bit more original.
How about you answer my earlier question now that we agree that Bush is responsible for his actions and decisions:
Now, aren't these back-sliding Dems who voted for the war responsible for their actions and decisions too?
Or are you going to say that they were misled,..... and didn't have "all the info" that the President had.......more pathetic excuses for THEIR ACTIONS. Maybe it was "society's fault" that they did it.....that's their usual argument for the behavior of their criminal "political base".
Marco
As to the now worn-out arguement that the dems voted for the war and they are somehow responsible or criminal--maybe they are, so what? I could care less.. They come up for reelection alot sooner than the next presidential election--if the American people (I guess they are all criminal too) see them as guilty of collusion with a flawed administration policy--they too should pay a price.
But the truth of the matter is--they were misled into this war. As time passes the Republicans count on the public forgetting how the administration repeatedly fanned the flames of 911 armegedon as the reason to get authorization to go to war--IF NECESSARY. Please reread that line: IF NECESSARY. The evidence was extremely flimsy--and they were so advised by the intelligence services, but nonetheless ramrodded the invasion while at the same time giving the finger to our allies when they requested a little more time for the almost-completed investigations on the ground to be finished.
The mere fact that many Democrats did vote to support the war reflects the fact, that as whole, they ARE concerned about the nation's security, and, when the RIGHT time arrived, and that it was ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the danger was imminent and dire, and that there were NO OTHER ALTERNATIVES--then war was the desired option.
But the administration was gun-happy and rushed off to invade before proving anything conclusively. Worse yet, they thought, as you did, it would be a simple walk in the park and that the rest of the region would simply sprout home-grown democracies as a result. This strategy is so incredibly naive and reflects the administration's total incompetance in both war-planning and understanding the region's geopolitical dynamics.
You and the Republicans can play the "it ain't our fault" or the "We never lied to anyone" games till doomsday, but the fact remains that this president and administration are in real trouble, both here and abroad and the American public isn't buying it anymore.
For Cheney and Bush to tie the results of the war to the lack of support among the dems is a total sham, a desperation card which they've had to play late in the game as they get desperate to stem the tidal wave of popular opinion that is finally catching up with them. Ultimately, the American public will figure the truth out.
The irony is, it will ultimately be the Republicans who will force a resolution to this conflict as they too get worried about upcoming elections. Some kind of variation of "peace with honor" will be increasingly pressed for in the next year which will see a nervous Iraqi police/defense force left to fend for itself--but then bailed out by a permanent US presence when the going gets tough. Eventually, the political situation will become so unstable that civil war of some sort will break out between Sunnis and Shia's--and quite possibly dragging Iran in as well. We have already seen evidence that the Shia majority is not especially disposed towards American-style democracy.
marcoBunkerMentaility