What the Democrats said about Saddam Hussein

[Elect]

"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

"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

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 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. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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

"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 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

"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

"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

Hmmm...

 

[momalle1]

This has already been covered on this forum like 9,000 times.

 

[kermit]

This argument fails for two reasons.

1) It makes the issue a symantic rather than based upon actions. The phrase "Bush took us to war on weak intelligence" has two parts. This argument focusses only the the second part. The american people are growing increasingly less fond of the first part. This argument only serves to hurt the president and by extension the GOP.

2) It "passes the buck". A chief executive has no one to blame for mistakes other than himself. Any attempt to do so is a sign of weakness and a demonstrates a lack of leadership.

 

[OhhJim]

A chief executive has no one to blame for mistakes other than himself.

Very true. But, remember, Bush never makes mistakes. When has he ever blamed himself for anything?

 

[one love]

Amazing what doctoring intelligence reports can do. This reminds me of the Sean Hanity show on FOX, he actual was retarded enough to take before and after comments and post them on his show of US senators, during the entire show. Everyone on the show told him he was an idiot because the comments contradict based upon false/doctored intelligence given to the senators by Bush. And the guy is moronic enough to brush it off and act as if it never happened. Kinda like the people who deny the holocaust. Who actually watches this guy and takes him seriously. Oh, well, my Hannity bashing moment is over.

 

[applepowerpc]

This is not a Republican-vs-Democrat issue.

 

[CaligulaNero]

Yes, the democrats are cowards and liars for supporting the war. And this execuses Bush's incompetence how?

 

[Niemand3D]

Some might enjoy the peanut gallery and throwing them, but isn't the question best placed in "How do we do what is right and improve the situation?" Criticizing the past is like living in the past, there's no future in it. The past is a good indicator of where we're heading, so how do we change the direction that so many have a problem with now (or in '08)?

 

[UberLutheran]

Another Democrat-bashing thread...

How many times have we covered this topic? 100? 200? ad nauseum?

 

[jsn112]

Amazing what doctoring intelligence reports can do. This reminds me of the Sean Hanity show on FOX, he actual was retarded enough to take before and after comments and post them on his show of US senators, during the entire show. Everyone on the show told him he was an idiot because the comments contradict based upon false/doctored intelligence given to the senators by Bush. And the guy is moronic enough to brush it off and act as if it never happened. Kinda like the people who deny the holocaust. Who actually watches this guy and takes him seriously. Oh, well, my Hannity bashing moment is over.

Answer this then...How could our intelligence could not come up with better and more reliable info? And it's not only the US but also the UN, UK, France, Germany, etc. With all the sophistication hardware available, why didn't the WORLD get it right? And also, why did Clinton bomb Iraq in '98 for 30 days on the basis of WMD when, as you claimed or insinuated, Iraq didn't have it?

 

[jsn112]

This argument fails for two reasons.

1) It makes the issue a symantic rather than based upon actions. The phrase "Bush took us to war on weak intelligence" has two parts. This argument focusses only the the second part. The american people are growing increasingly less fond of the first part. This argument only serves to hurt the president and by extension the GOP.

2) It "passes the buck". A chief executive has no one to blame for mistakes other than himself. Any attempt to do so is a sign of weakness and a demonstrates a lack of leadership.

It also shows the lack of leadership on the liberal side because they want to make Iraq another Vietnam. Don't deny it.

 

[jsn112]

Another Democrat-bashing thread...

How many times have we covered this topic? 100? 200? ad nauseum?

And how many times will the liberals compare Iraq to Vietnam? The liberals showed their true cowardly collar last Friday's vote before Thanksgiving about pulling out the troops from Iraq. They talk big, but can't do the walk.

 

[UberLutheran]

Very true. But, remember, Bush never makes mistakes. When has he ever blamed himself for anything?

The reason Bush has never blamed himself for anything is because Bush has been Divinely appointed to lead the United States. Divinely appointed leaders, as prophets, are Biblically prohibited from making mistakes (Deut. 18:22). Were Bush to make a mistake, it would be proof that he had NOT been Divinely appointed to lead the United States; hence, Bush would be a false prophet (or worse, an AntiChrist). Therefore, Bush makes no mistakes. Ever.

 

[OhhJim]

Answer this then...How could our intelligence could not come up with better and more reliable info? And it's not only the US but also the UN, UK, France, Germany, etc. With all the sophistication hardware available, why didn't the WORLD get it right?

Germany is claiming they got it right, but Bush wouldn't listen. You knew that, right?

 

[UberLutheran]

And how many times will the liberals compare Iraq to Vietnam? The liberals showed their true cowardly collar last Friday's vote before Thanksgiving about pulling out the troops from Iraq. They talk big, but can't do the walk.

And how many times will conservatives attempt to hijack threads by bringing in irrelevant, extraneous information?

FYI, jsn112: I wasn't in Congress last Friday. I haven't been elected yet.

 

[jsn112]

Germany is claiming they got it right, but Bush wouldn't listen. You knew that, right?

Is that why Germany vote for Resolution 1441 for the purpose of disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction? Why if Germany got it right?

 

[jsn112]

And how many times will conservatives attempt to hijack threads by bringing in irrelevant, extraneous information?

FYI, jsn112: I wasn't in Congress last Friday. I haven't been elected yet.

Anytime the liberals want to bring "it."

 

[OhhJim]

Is that why Germany vote for Resolution 1441 for the purpose of disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction? Why if Germany got it right?

At least Germany was smart enough not to actually invade Iraq, when they could let some dumb president of another country do it for them!!! Talk is cheap, votes are almost as cheap. D'oh!!

 

[jsn112]

At least Germany was smart enough not to actually invade Iraq, when they could let some dumb president of another country do it for them!!! Talk is cheap, votes are almost as cheap. D'oh!!

No, it's because Germany, along with France, was probably had it good with Saddam's oil.

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

Why is this just a constant he said/she said, let's attack each other and continue to get nowhere in this arguement? It's getting very old. A lot more people supported the war (including the public) than support it now. Many people have changed their position because the original reasons for the war have NOT proved to be true. Just because they supported it at the time, doesn't mean they are obligated to keep doing so.

I say bravo to the people who have changed positions in light of the LACK of evidence supporting the war. Bush could learn a lot from their example. Maybe if he took some responsibility for his mistakes, instead of stubbornly feeling he is always right, he can save his spiraling approval and the extremely negative view he is gaining in history.