IHL
01-06-2005, 08:55 PM
I am so tired of listening to the liberals criticize George Bush about the attack on Iraq and how he mislead America that I could just about puke. I try to keep my rage out of this site but sometime I can hardly contain myself. And to listen to these liberals attack the president when they so clearly backed Clinton a few years earlier just pisses me off so bad I could scream. And will you see a word of this on the liberal news stations? Of course not. Again, I would welcome a liberal response to the following quotes. Explain to me how these people can now attack Bush on his handling of the war on terror. I know you are out there and I'll be happy to post your replies to the site. On a daily basis you hear them spout the same stories about how there was no threat and how Bush had planned the attack in retaliation for Saddam trying to kill his father, and all the other B.S. they are charging. And now with the 9-11 commission and the blatant lies and contradictions of Richard Clarke, it's even worse. Can you image if President Bush had gone before the American people PRIOR to 9-11 and said we need to invade Afghanistan because Osama Bin Laden is planning an attack on the United States? The liberals won't condone pre-emptive attacks even AFTER 9-11. Imagine their reaction if we had tried something before the attacks of September 11th. They are all playing Monday morning quarterbacks now acting like they knew there were no weapons all along and also acting like they never thought Iraq and Saddam were a threat. It's pure politics and it is nauseating. The truth is, most of these same liberals were fully behind Clinton when he attacked Iraq, even though the only reason Clinton did it was to focus attention away from the Lewinsky hearings.
So what were some of these liberals saying when they were in charge and they had to try to make decisions without the benefit on hind-sight? Let's take a look...
"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.
"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 <NOBR>al Qaeda</NOBR> 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
"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.
"I hope Saddam Hussein... clearly understand[s] the resolve and determination of this [Clinton] administration and this country. This may be a political year... but on this issue there can be no disunity. There can be no lack of cohesion. We stand united, Republicans and Democrats, determined to send as clear a message with as clear a resolve as we can articulate: Saddam Hussein's actions will not be tolerated. His willingness to brutally attack Kurds in northern Iraq and abrogate U.N. resolutions is simply unacceptable. We intend to make that point clear with the use of force... [Saddam] has to agree that there will be compliance with international law and the agreements that he signed in 1991. Period. Look, we have exhausted virtually [all] our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?... The answer is, we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily. I don't know what purpose is served by attacking one another on this point. I mean, if ever there was a time for us to present a unified front to Iraq, this ought to be it... Let's not... send all kinds of erroneous messages to Iraq about what kind of unity there is within the community." -Senator Tom Daschle (D, SD), 1998
"[I am] saddened, saddened, that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to go to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country."[b] -Senator Tom Daschle (D, SD), 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.
"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.
"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 have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"[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 Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"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.
"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.
"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
Must I continue? Do you get the point? Can you liberals ever stand behind your words and admit that this president is the only president that has had the balls to stand up to these terrorists, take the fight to them, and do what is needed to protect this country? All the liberals want to do is cut and run like Spain did the second they were attacked. The liberals say they want peace. We all want peace! It's the terrorists that want war! Liberals want to appease the terrorists so we don't make them mad and if they will stop being mad at us they will leave us alone. Oh really?
Did appeasement work after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993? Five of our citizens were killed in that attack and hundreds were wounded. Did they leave us alone after Clinton did nothing in return?
Also in 1993, the battle in the streets of Mogadishu took place. This is the event that the movie Blackhawk Down was based on. After 18 of our troops were savagely killed and one of the bodies was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, Clinton responded by ordering our troops home. Did appeasement work here? Did Osama Bin Laden call off his goons? Quite the opposite. Osama told ABC News, "The youth... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat." Osama Bin Laden called our soldiers paper tigers. And Clinton did nothing.
Did appeasement work after they attacked the Khobar Towers (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Khobar.htm) in 1996 killing nineteen of our servicemen and wounding hundreds of others including civilians and Clinton did nothing in return?
Did appeasement work in 1998 when they attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killing over 200 of our soldiers and Clinton did nothing in return?
Did appeasement work in 2000 when they attacked the USS Cole as it sat in a harbor and they killed 17 more of our soldiers? And again, Clinton did nothing. Did appeasement work for the eight years that Clinton did nothing to protect the United States and it's service men and women? No. Instead what it did was embolden them, make them more confident and make them realize they had nothing to fear. All it accomplished was to make their attacks more deadly and horrendous. And what do you suppose their next attack would have been like if President Bush had ran and hid instead of acting? Thankfully we haven't had to find out. We hope we never will, but as I've said before and as the liberals have been quoted as saying themselves, these threats are real. We can not sit and wait for another attack to happen. If we wait, it will happen. And now, after George Bush has captured Saddam Hussein, killed his sons, rendered Osama Bin Laden impotent, ended the Al Qaeda training camps, defeated the Taliban, etc, etc, - these liberals have the gall to claim that is was George Bush who did not do all he could to prevent 9-11!! Are you kidding me!!?? How do these people sleep at night? They get away with it because they are never called on their previous actions by the liberal media, unless of course they happened to be right about something. We must do as the Bush Doctrine says. We must get the terrorists before they get us. It is the only way to win this war. And if George Bush remains in power, we will win. -
So what were some of these liberals saying when they were in charge and they had to try to make decisions without the benefit on hind-sight? Let's take a look...
"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.
"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 <NOBR>al Qaeda</NOBR> 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
"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.
"I hope Saddam Hussein... clearly understand[s] the resolve and determination of this [Clinton] administration and this country. This may be a political year... but on this issue there can be no disunity. There can be no lack of cohesion. We stand united, Republicans and Democrats, determined to send as clear a message with as clear a resolve as we can articulate: Saddam Hussein's actions will not be tolerated. His willingness to brutally attack Kurds in northern Iraq and abrogate U.N. resolutions is simply unacceptable. We intend to make that point clear with the use of force... [Saddam] has to agree that there will be compliance with international law and the agreements that he signed in 1991. Period. Look, we have exhausted virtually [all] our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?... The answer is, we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily. I don't know what purpose is served by attacking one another on this point. I mean, if ever there was a time for us to present a unified front to Iraq, this ought to be it... Let's not... send all kinds of erroneous messages to Iraq about what kind of unity there is within the community." -Senator Tom Daschle (D, SD), 1998
"[I am] saddened, saddened, that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to go to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country."[b] -Senator Tom Daschle (D, SD), 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.
"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.
"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 have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"[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 Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"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.
"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.
"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
Must I continue? Do you get the point? Can you liberals ever stand behind your words and admit that this president is the only president that has had the balls to stand up to these terrorists, take the fight to them, and do what is needed to protect this country? All the liberals want to do is cut and run like Spain did the second they were attacked. The liberals say they want peace. We all want peace! It's the terrorists that want war! Liberals want to appease the terrorists so we don't make them mad and if they will stop being mad at us they will leave us alone. Oh really?
Did appeasement work after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993? Five of our citizens were killed in that attack and hundreds were wounded. Did they leave us alone after Clinton did nothing in return?
Also in 1993, the battle in the streets of Mogadishu took place. This is the event that the movie Blackhawk Down was based on. After 18 of our troops were savagely killed and one of the bodies was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, Clinton responded by ordering our troops home. Did appeasement work here? Did Osama Bin Laden call off his goons? Quite the opposite. Osama told ABC News, "The youth... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat." Osama Bin Laden called our soldiers paper tigers. And Clinton did nothing.
Did appeasement work after they attacked the Khobar Towers (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Khobar.htm) in 1996 killing nineteen of our servicemen and wounding hundreds of others including civilians and Clinton did nothing in return?
Did appeasement work in 1998 when they attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killing over 200 of our soldiers and Clinton did nothing in return?
Did appeasement work in 2000 when they attacked the USS Cole as it sat in a harbor and they killed 17 more of our soldiers? And again, Clinton did nothing. Did appeasement work for the eight years that Clinton did nothing to protect the United States and it's service men and women? No. Instead what it did was embolden them, make them more confident and make them realize they had nothing to fear. All it accomplished was to make their attacks more deadly and horrendous. And what do you suppose their next attack would have been like if President Bush had ran and hid instead of acting? Thankfully we haven't had to find out. We hope we never will, but as I've said before and as the liberals have been quoted as saying themselves, these threats are real. We can not sit and wait for another attack to happen. If we wait, it will happen. And now, after George Bush has captured Saddam Hussein, killed his sons, rendered Osama Bin Laden impotent, ended the Al Qaeda training camps, defeated the Taliban, etc, etc, - these liberals have the gall to claim that is was George Bush who did not do all he could to prevent 9-11!! Are you kidding me!!?? How do these people sleep at night? They get away with it because they are never called on their previous actions by the liberal media, unless of course they happened to be right about something. We must do as the Bush Doctrine says. We must get the terrorists before they get us. It is the only way to win this war. And if George Bush remains in power, we will win. -