2
   

The usual suspects were on the bandwagon all along

 
 
Fedral
 
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2003 03:30 pm
The usual suspects were on the bandwagon all along[/u]
By:Ross Mackenzie

The Episcopalians are flaming out. Californians dissed their governor and now Arnold Schwarzenegger has declared an economic emergency. Rush Limbaugh broke bad. D.C.-area snipers Muhammad and Malvo have been convicted. Jacko, the self-styled King of Pop, faces trial on seven counts of child molestation. Martha Stewart is headed to trial, too. Perhaps 30,000 Iranians have died in an earthquake. It's Code Orange. And oh, yes - Saddam Hussein is cooling his heels in the slammer.

Still, peacenik Howard Dean - pulling away from the pack - seems headed toward the Democratic presidential nomination. And Democrats generally, from presidential wannabes on down, are saying, "President Bush misled us into war against Saddam on the basis of insufficient information about his possession of, or his efforts to acquire, weapons of mass destruction."

Oh?

Consider, please, the following - drawn from a September piece on the editorial page of Investor's Business Daily - wherein many of the Usual Suspects are quoted regarding the existence of, and the need to remove, Saddam's WMDs...

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMDs and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- Clinton, Feb. 17, 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 WMD program."

- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998: "What happens in (Iraq) 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."

- Letter to Clinton signed by Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, etc., Oct. 9, 1998: "We urge you ... to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspected Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs."

- Congressman (now House Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 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."

- Sen. Bob Graham and other Democratic senators in a letter to President Bush, Dec. 5, 2001: "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."

- Sen. Levin, Sept. 19, 2002: "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building WMDs and the means of delivering them."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002: "We know that (Saddam) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing WMDs."

- Sen. Robert Byrd, Oct. 3, 2002: "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. Kerry, Oct. 9, 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 WMDs in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton, 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-Qaida 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. Kerry, Jan. 23, 2003: "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."

Many of the usual suspects recently attacking President Bush and declaring smugly, "I insistently have dismissed the phony claims of Saddam's WMDs as a justification for war against him," have eagerly ridden the WMD bandwagon all along. Comes now Howard Dean, in his way trying to clamber aboard. In October he blasted the president on Iraq, telling The New York Times he opposed the American invasion last spring and promising that if president he (a) would cut the number of American troops in Iraq by half and (b) would send President Clinton to the Middle East to broker peace.

Dean added: (1) "Great countries ... get in trouble when they overstretch their military capabilities," and (2) "What this president is doing is setting the stage for the failure of America."

"Setting the stage for failure"? If so, the record shows that President Bush had considerable help and encouragement from Dean and his fellow suspects in ideological crime.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 7,649 • Replies: 122
No top replies

 
MichaelAllen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2003 10:46 pm
Another thing these quotes demonstrate is the flip-flop that most politicians, especially democrats, do when the situations change. One might say, they have WMDs to make it look like Bush isn't doing anything. Then, they say, there are no WMDs so Bush was wrong to go over there and do something. Well, one thing is for sure, finding anything in that land will take awhile. Longer than our attempt so far. It's not like we're dragging the bottom of a lake. We are exploring an entire country that also has a proven underground system. We have awhile to go yet. And even if we don't find any WMDs, we ousted Hussein. He's gone. That would have been my platform all along. Then, at least, I wouldn't have to listen to a bunch of hypocrites flip-flop on every opinion they have.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2003 11:01 pm
Great post Fedral. Why is it so hard to understand that even if we don't find WMDs, the intent was there and we certainly had ample "probable cause".
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2003 11:37 pm
Where are the WMD's Bush and his bunch said were a danger to us. He lied! Suger coat it all you want to. If Iraq was a real danger to us why dident he just state it instead of this WMD's garbage. He lied!
0 Replies
 
MichaelAllen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2003 11:50 pm
rabel22 wrote:
Where are the WMD's Bush and his bunch said were a danger to us. He lied! Suger coat it all you want to. If Iraq was a real danger to us why dident he just state it instead of this WMD's garbage. He lied!


If you had read the post, you would have read how many other people confirmed WMDs including Bill Clinton, Sen. Ted Kennedy and Sen. Tom Daschle among the other distinct names listed. So many people know that WMDs exist and have existed since Saddam was playing hide and seek with Clinton back throughout the 90s. Find another way to downgrade Bush, this one isn't quite working as well as you guys schemed.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2003 07:25 am
<<deep yawn>>

So what?

Many people who thought that there were WMD's in Iraq still opposed the war. There is nothing here but partisan whining.

There was a strong feeling among many who opposed the war that a strict regime of inspections was sufficient and preferrable to a war. And, it is clear now that inspections *were* sufficient to stop Iraq from having WMD's.

Many Americans believe the war was a big mistake. To me, and to many Americans, this war is a big reason that Bush will not receive my vote.

Fedral, your post is nothing more than partisan bickering - not worthy of any more than a sarcastic snort which I will give you now <<snorts sarcastically>>

Michael,
The war will be a huge part of the upcoming presidential campaign. There are many Americans who feel that the war was a big mistake. Many of us will refuse to vote for Bush because of the war.

That there were no WMD's, after Bush spent so much time exaggerating the threat, is certainly a liability for his reelection chances.
0 Replies
 
MichaelAllen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2003 08:49 am
Oh, I understand some people oppose the war. Everyone was for it after 9/11. Plenty of people were for it back in March, 2003. The only partisan bickering going on is from any Democrat who can find a way to tear Bush down even though his ratings are climbing. And if you're going to say many people oppose the war, just as many people if not more are for it.

The nit-picking is a focus and favorite strategy of the Democrats. And they have the nerve to point the finger at anyone else. Bush had several reasons for going to war. Saddam needed taken out. But, that's not the focus. The only objective out of all the objectives we had outlined before the war is the one of greatest focus. Forget the fact that we won in a short amount of time. Forget the fact that we found most of the people we needed to take out of office. Forget the fact that we freed a people from a ruthless dictatorship and are providing them now, as we have always done, with the beginning stages of rebuilding their lives. No, the only thing you can find to complain about is that we have not found WMDs. And as I've already said, that is no easy task. Anyone who thinks we should have found something by now should go over there and do it yourself. Give it a try and see how easy it is to find a needle in a haystack.

Now, I'm not always for war. But, I will never understand taking a hit and not wanting to do something about it. People who oppose war after they have been significantly hit, will let the world walk all over them and they will lose the little bit of freedom that presently exists. Remember, innocent American lives were taken by cowardly terrorists. I'm not sure people remember such tid-bits when they're talking smack about someone who did something about it.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2003 08:54 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Great post Fedral. Why is it so hard to understand that even if we don't find WMDs, the intent was there and we certainly had ample "probable cause".


Horseshit. why aren't we invading North Korea?

Why aren't we invading Israel?

What are we going to do about the nation with the most WMD's on the planet who have said they will use them if necessary and already did?

Why can't you people guess that Iraq was a payOFF for his campaign contributors in the oil industry and the nation building industry and a payBACK for his "tarnished" family legacy?

But, you won't, and you'll doggedly stick to your "You don't approve of GWB's war so you love Saddam and you support terrorism" theme while Toby Keith and Lee Greenwood wave flags and supply your soundtrack.
Bon Appetit, enjoy while you can.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2003 09:08 am
Michael, your posts are often very thoughtful. You posts on this topic fall short of this mark.

You seemed to be saying that the opposition to the war is based on political "nit-picking". Pure Hogwash!

This war is a big issue and its effects - both good and bad will have a major impact on our country for years to come. Whatever your political stripe, any rational person will recognize that there are real reasons to oppose (and to support) what Bush did.

The very premise this inane thread is based on is flawed. The people who opposed the war never said that Iraq didn't have WMD's. The argument was that Iraq should be dealt with by the international comunity and that inspections were sufficient... and that argument appears to have been correct.

But my point is this. The war in Iraq is a very complex issue that involves very deep and important issues. Everyone agrees that te fall of Saddam was a good thing. Everyone agrees that the loss of life (both American and Iraqi) is tragic. The debate about whether the war was worth it -- both to America and to the world at large -- depends a lot on your values and beliefs .

The intelligent person will wrestle honestly with both sides of this difficult issue. Balancing issues of justice and humanity and death and sovreignty are never easy.

But to discount opposition to the war as democratic "nit-picking" shows a very narrow view indeed.

This partisan sniping is childish.
0 Replies
 
MichaelAllen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2003 09:17 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Why can't you people guess that Iraq was a payOFF for his campaign contributors in the oil industry and the nation building industry and a payBACK for his "tarnished" family legacy?

But, you won't, and you'll doggedly stick to your "You don't approve of GWB's war so you love Saddam and you support terrorism" theme while Toby Keith and Lee Greenwood wave flags and supply your soundtrack.
Bon Appetit, enjoy while you can.


I'm not going to get into guessing about payoffs and paybacks. That's just more dust getting kicked up when we're trying to clear the way now. Strong ties have been made between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein proving Saddam supported terrorist activities that flattened two towers in New York. Now, if there was a payoff, GOOD! Get a spine people. And the payBACK for a tarnished family legacy is more than that, it's a tarnished American achievement. More people had heartburn over it than just one family. Count every veteran from Desert Shield and Desert Storm while you're at it.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2003 09:19 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Horseshit. why aren't we invading North Korea?


Perhaps , much like Lybia, we are waiting for N.Korea to see what happened to Iraq and disarm voluntarily.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Why aren't we invading Israel?


Israel is a stable, friendly power and no threat to the United States.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
What are we going to do about the nation with the most WMD's on the planet who have said they will use them if necessary and already did?


Russia has the largest number of nuclear warheads and has never used them on anyone so far.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Why can't you people guess that Iraq was a payOFF for his campaign contributors in the oil industry and the nation building industry and a payBACK for his "tarnished" family legacy?


Then why are we doing everything in our power to hand over the reigns of power back to the Iraqi people? How will any U.S. oil industry benefit if the money from those wells is going to the Iraqi government ?

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
But, you won't, and you'll doggedly stick to your "You don't approve of GWB's war so you love Saddam and you support terrorism" theme while Toby Keith and Lee Greenwood wave flags and supply your soundtrack.
Bon Appetit, enjoy while you can.


LOL you can't make me ashamed of being an American no matter HOW hard you try. I love this country and if you don't, I feel very sad for you.......... if you can name a better country to live in, please do so.................................................. can't can you. Smile
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2003 09:27 am
Michael the Saudis, Libyans, Yemenis, Palestinians, Iranians, damn near the whole middle east have large factions that support and aid terrorists. Are we to invade them?

We should have an intimate knowledge of saddams' weapons of terror since we sold them to him. Hell, Rumsfeld brokered the deal. Old Rummy he's everywhere. Sold N Korea their reactors, too.

Desert Storm was not a tarnished American achievment except in the eyes of the John Wayne mentality people who are now, hopefully temporarily, in charge and the lemmings who blindly follow them.

#41 did exactly what he had a mandate for and came home. Sometimes not overstepping your authority is a bitter pill to swallow, but he correctly swallowed it.

The Bush administration and the Bin Laden group are the same expansionist lunatics merely hiding behind a different God as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their view though, that's impossible I've come to realize.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2003 09:35 am
Good job Fedral...love it or leave it...no criticism allowed.....get real...I love MY country as well. I was born and raised here...and I have a right to squeak if I think someone's leading us down the wrong road....

Why shouldn't we hand power back to the Iraqis? We've done what we came to do, we will control the flow of oil, government procedures from behind the scenes, maintain a military presence to keep the rest of the Middle East on their toes, and most importantly personally enrich Bush Inc. for years, perhaps decades to come...Iraq will be in practice if not appearance, a USA territory for a long time....and we'll pay for it out of our tax dollars but we won't be included in the profit sharing plan......
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2003 09:43 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Good job Fedral...love it or leave it...no criticism allowed.....get real...I love MY country as well. I was born and raised here...and I have a right to squeak if I think someone's leading us down the wrong road....


And exactly WHERE in my post did you read 'love it or leave it' ?

As to the part about loving this country, if you will see that I was talking about MYSELF.

Also at no point did I EVER insinuate that you didn't have a right to squeak, shout or sing about what you think is wrong about this country.

This is the problem I have with many liberal types ... you read what you want to into a posting without letting the actual facts get in the way.

As to the end of my post, I was just asking you to NAME a better place to live, not forcing you or anyone else to go there.

Also your quote of:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Old Rummy he's everywhere. Sold N Korea their reactors, too.


I think you will find that the Russians sold N. Korea their reactors and the N.Koreans had the French come in to help correct some problems with them.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2003 09:50 am
If you will go to the ABB site and do a little research , you will find differently, and Donald Rumsfeld sat on their board until he gave up his position to become house toady for George.

What I find irking about you right wingers is that you insinuate with every breath that you are better Americans than everyone else, exude a love it or leave it attitude, and then when someone calls you on it, get on your high horse and act insulted because you didn't "say it". Not very masculine for such tough "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out types"

Iceland.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2003 09:54 am
UNITED NATIONS, June 12 (Reuters) - Canada, for the sixth consecutive year,
ranks first among best
places to live, while Norway treats women better than any other country,
according to the 1999 U.N.
Human Development Report, released on Monday.


This year's survey, like its predecessors, ranks 174 nations according to
how people live, factoring in health care, life expectancy, education and
income.


In the overall index, Norway is in second place, followed by the United
States, Japan, Belgium, Sweden, Australia, the Netherlands, Iceland,
Britain, France, Switzerland, Finland, Germany, Denmark, Austria,
Luxembourg, New Zealand, Italy and Ireland.


At the other end of the scale, the 10 least developed countries in human
terms are, from the bottom up, Sierra Leone, Niger, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso,
Burundi, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Eritrea, Mali and the Central African
Republic.


The latest report I could find. Of course, since it is a finding by the spineless, useless and no longer relevant UN I'm sure it's meaningless and probably an outright lie, right Fedral? :wink:

btw I'm not going to leave here. Don't want to. this is my home, best place to live or not.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2003 10:08 am
I never insinuated that I loved my country more than anyone else ... just that I love it. If you do or don't never entered into my post.

As to Iceland? .....

Climate:
temperate; moderated by North Atlantic Current; mild, windy winters; damp, cool summers
I like my summers warm thanks

Natural hazards:
earthquakes and volcanic activity
At least I can run from the hurricanes we get here in Florida

Population:
280,798 (July 2003 est.)
The city I live in has more people than this

Iceland has a flat income tax rate of 35 percent
I don't think I like the idea of the government taking 35% of my earnings. Even feudal lords only took a third !
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2003 10:23 am
Iceland uses that tax money to good purpose..healthcare, education (highest literacy rate in the world) geothermal heating....it's tax for the purpose of feeding the military and without representation that I don't like.....


I didn't realize that living in a populated country made it better..

climate? to each his own, doesn't make a place good or bad...I like hot summers too.....
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2003 10:42 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Iceland uses that tax money to good purpose..healthcare, education (highest literacy rate in the world) geothermal heating....it's tax for the purpose of feeding the military and without representation that I don't like.....


I didn't realize that living in a populated country made it better..

climate? to each his own, doesn't make a place good or bad...I like hot summers too.....


It's easy not to have a military if your defence needs are handled by the United States of America.

From the CIA world factbook on Iceland:
Military branches:
no regular armed forces; Police, Coast Guard
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 71,157 (2003 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 62,552 (2003 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$0
Military - note:
defense is provided by the US-manned Icelandic Defense Force (IDF) headquartered at Keflavik
[/u]
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2003 10:53 am
A little more reading Fedral...Iceland does have a police force...they're main purpose is to catch tax cheats...because you see there is practically no crime there.......they have a prison as well....

The UN funds the military base is my understanding even though it is staffed by Americans..... no doubt to give the USA some sort of strategic advantage...don't get all choked up about the altruistic aspects of it......

and anyway, these stats are a negative for the country in what way?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The usual suspects were on the bandwagon all along
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 03:31:00