Jovitalk - Bon Jovi Fan Community

Jovitalk - Bon Jovi Fan Community (https://drycounty.com/jovitalk/index.php)
-   NBJ - Everything Else (https://drycounty.com/jovitalk/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Whoops I forgot I said that!! (https://drycounty.com/jovitalk/showthread.php?t=25905)

Deborah 06-14-2004 11:37 PM

Whoops I forgot I said that!!
 
erm.......???

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 time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998

"[WE] 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 (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), 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 invigorated 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, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!

Adrian 06-15-2004 03:04 AM

The message I'm getting here is that they're just as big liars as Bush... IMO, they're all traitorous morons.

Adrian

spunkywho 06-15-2004 03:09 AM

Re: Whoops I forgot I said that!!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Deborah
SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!

and what exactly are the conflicting words???

I really don't get it.

Just because at one point we thought there were weapons of mass destruction doesn't mean Bush didn't lie about the alleged evidence he said he had.

Kathleen 06-15-2004 03:21 AM

Re: Whoops I forgot I said that!!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by spunkywho
and what exactly are the conflicting words???

I really don't get it.

Just because at one point we thought there were weapons of mass destruction doesn't mean Bush didn't lie about the alleged evidence he said he had.

Ah - the voice of reason. :D

Yes - as I understand it everyone thought Iraq had WMDs. Particularly when the UN was not allowed in to the country to inspect as they had agreed to. It was only AFTER Saddam allowed the UN back into the country that they found no evidence of those weapons. Unfortunately Bush refused to believe the report the UN inspectors filed.

Kathleen

Mousebounce 06-15-2004 03:45 AM

Quote:

Particularly when the UN was not allowed in to the country to inspect as they had agreed to. It was only AFTER Saddam allowed the UN back into the country that they found no evidence of those weapons. Unfortunately Bush refused to believe the report the UN inspectors filed.
But isn't it kind of odd that Saddam didn't allow the inspectors to come into Iraq right from the start. Then once he gives the okay, nothing was found. :?

Of course you can argue that in the end nothing was found, therefore you can't go by whatifs, but it is all a bit curious to me.

spunkywho 06-15-2004 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mousebounce
Quote:

Particularly when the UN was not allowed in to the country to inspect as they had agreed to. It was only AFTER Saddam allowed the UN back into the country that they found no evidence of those weapons. Unfortunately Bush refused to believe the report the UN inspectors filed.
But isn't it kind of odd that Saddam didn't allow the inspectors to come into Iraq right from the start. Then once he gives the okay, nothing was found. :?

so what could that possibly mean? That he destroyed all weapons prior to the UN coming in? So what? It doesn't change a thing about what Bush did.

Mousebounce 06-15-2004 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spunkywho
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mousebounce
Quote:

Particularly when the UN was not allowed in to the country to inspect as they had agreed to. It was only AFTER Saddam allowed the UN back into the country that they found no evidence of those weapons. Unfortunately Bush refused to believe the report the UN inspectors filed.
But isn't it kind of odd that Saddam didn't allow the inspectors to come into Iraq right from the start. Then once he gives the okay, nothing was found. :?

so what could that possibly mean? That he destroyed all weapons prior to the UN coming in? So what? It doesn't change a thing about what Bush did.

I wasn't addressing that aspect, as much as I was adressing the fact that the UN found no evidence of weapons. If you look at the second half of my statement, I don't disagree with what you are saying. :wink:

Kathleen 06-15-2004 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mousebounce
Quote:

Particularly when the UN was not allowed in to the country to inspect as they had agreed to. It was only AFTER Saddam allowed the UN back into the country that they found no evidence of those weapons. Unfortunately Bush refused to believe the report the UN inspectors filed.
But isn't it kind of odd that Saddam didn't allow the inspectors to come into Iraq right from the start. Then once he gives the okay, nothing was found. :?

Of course you can argue that in the end nothing was found, therefore you can't go by whatifs, but it is all a bit curious to me.

Well - I realize that hindsight is perfect vision - but I have read since this war started that the US has known since the late 90's that there were no weapons of mass destruction. It's possible that keeping that story alive helped cover Bush's real political agenda. It seems to be common knowlege now that there was an agenda to "get Saddam" since Bush Sr. didn't. I read several of the letters that were dated 1998 signed by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz written to Clinton urging him to "get Saddam.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/night...ac_030310.html

Kathleen

Mousebounce 06-15-2004 05:03 AM

Interesting reading. Thanks Kathleen. :D

StoneDeaf 06-15-2004 10:03 AM

Re: Whoops I forgot I said that!!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by spunkywho
Just because at one point we thought there were weapons of mass destruction doesn't mean Bush didn't lie about the alleged evidence he said he had.

"we thought"...for gods sake, is that enough reson for u to go to war?
I sure hope the majority doesn't think like u.


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11.
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.