McCain believes Iraq war can be won by 2013
Too_Many_Tools
Wasn't this the Republican war that was supposed to be won in six
months?
Support the troops....bring them home NOW.
TMT
McCain believes Iraq war can be won by 2013 By GLEN JOHNSON,
Associated Press Writer
Republican John McCain declared for the first time Thursday he
believes the Iraq war can be won by 2013, although he rejected
suggestions that his talk of a timetable put him on the same side as
Democrats clamoring for full-scale troop withdrawals.
The Republican presidential contender, in a mystical speech that also
envisioned Osama bin Laden dead or captured, and Americans with the
choice of paying a simple flat tax or following their standard 1040
form, said only a small number of troops would remain in Iraq by the
end of a prospective first term because al-Qaida will have been
defeated and Iraq's government will be functioning on its own.
"By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and
women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in
her freedom. The Iraq War has been won," McCain told an audience of
several hundred here in the capital city of a general election
battleground state.
Later, as the Arizona senator drove to the airport on his "Straight
Talk Express" campaign bus, McCain was peppered by reporters with
questions about the timetable. He and his aides insisted there was a
difference between ending the war and bringing troops home and, as
they criticize the Democrats, announcing a withdrawal upfront without
regard for the military endgame.
"It's not a timetable; it's victory. It's victory, which I have always
predicted. I didn't know when we were going to win World War II; I
just knew we were going to win," McCain said.
The Vietnam veteran added: "I know from experience, you set a day for
surrender — which is basically what you do when you say you are
withdrawing — and you will pay a much a heavier price later on."
In the primary campaign, McCain had criticized former Republican rival
Mitt Romney for hinting at a timetable.
Democrats challenged McCain's comments, led by presidential contender
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In a statement, the New York senator dismissed McCain and said he
"promises more of the same Bush policies that have weakened our
military, our national security and our standing in the world." The
Barack Obama campaign said that while the candidate agrees with some
of McCain's sentiments, "you cannot embrace the destructive policies
and divisive political tactics of George Bush and still offer yourself
as a candidate of healing and change."
Other Democrats equated McCain's comment with President Bush's May 1,
2003, speech on the deck of an aircraft carrier displaying a "Mission
Accomplished" banner.
In his remarks, McCain peered through a crystal ball to 2013 and
envisioned an era of bipartisanship driven by weekly news conferences
and British-style question periods with joint meetings of Congress.
The senator conceded he cannot make the changes alone, but said he
wanted to outline a specific governing style to show the
accomplishments it can achieve. He backed up his remarks with a Web ad
featuring similar content.
"I'm not interested in partisanship that serves no other purpose than
to gain a temporary advantage over our opponents. This mindless,
paralyzing rancor must come to an end. We belong to different parties,
not different countries," McCain said. "There is a time to campaign,
and a time to govern. If I'm elected president, the era of the
permanent campaign will end; the era of problem-solving will begin."
To the disdain of some fellow Republicans, the likely GOP nominee has
worked with Democrats on legislation aimed at overhauling campaign
finance regulations, redrafting immigration rules and regulations and
implementing government spending controls.
While that has cultivated a maverick image for McCain, the Arizona
senator has also been accused of exhibiting a nasty temper — swearing
even at fellow lawmakers from his own party — and unabashed
partisanship.
In particular, McCain has clashed with the leading Democratic
presidential contender, Barack Obama. After tangling with the Illinois
senator on lobbying reforms, McCain questioned Obama's integrity in a
publicly released 2006 letter.
McCain wrote he had thought Obama's interest in ethics legislation
"was genuine and admirable," before adding: "Thank you for disabusing
me of such notions." He accused Obama of "partisan posturing."
In outlining other potential achievements of a first term in his
speech, the 71-year-old McCain implicitly was suggesting he would seek
a second term, an attempt to mute suggestions he would serve only four
years after being the oldest president elected.
In particular, he sees a world in which the Taliban threat in
Afghanistan has been greatly reduced.
He added: "The increase in actionable intelligence that the
counterinsurgency produced led to the capture or death of Osama bin
Laden, and his chief lieutenants. ... There still has not been a major
terrorist attack in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001."
McCain also pledged to halt a Bush administration practice of enacting
laws with accompanying signing statements that exempt the president
from having to enforce parts he finds objectionable.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> And he would bet your son and daughter that he is right....
>
> Wasn't this the Republican war that was supposed to be won in six
> months?
>
> Support the troops....bring them home NOW.
>
> TMT
>
> McCain believes Iraq war can be won by 2013 By GLEN JOHNSON,
> Associated Press Writer
Hey, we all have to believe in something, right?
Oh, I forgot. No we don't.
Bob Brock
It's nice to have a few facts to back up our beliefs.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Based upon two facts, I believe the war can be lost by 2013.
rigger
> And he would bet your son and daughter that he is right....
>
> Wasn't this the Republican war that was supposed to be won in six
> months?
>
> Support the troops....bring them home NOW.
>
> TMT
>
> McCain believes Iraq war can be won by 2013 By GLEN JOHNSON,
> Associated Press Writer
>
Let's see, 2013...2013...2013, oh I get it. So the little
fake is elected in 2008 then add 4 years = 2012. I
guess this means he'd have to be elected for a second
term for his plan to be successful?
McCain is such a disingenuous asshole; typical politician.
dennis
in nca
Observer
And those facts are...?
__
"I don't know any straight-talking Republicans, do you?
I can't get a straight answer out of any Republicans.
I Don't know what they're talking about" - Bill O'Reilly
Too_Many_Tools
It is easy for McCain to say we will win by 2013...he is so old he
likely won't be around to see it .
TMT
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:30:34 -0700 (PDT),
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 16, 11:59 am, Bob Brock <bbr...@i-americia.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 May 2008 03:48:59 -0700 (PDT),
>
> >> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >On May 16, 2:54 am, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> And he would bet your son and daughter that he is right....
>
> >> >> Wasn't this the Republican war that was supposed to be won in six
> >> >> months?
>
> >> >> Support the troops....bring them home NOW.
>
> >> >> TMT
>
> >> >> McCain believes Iraq war can be won by 2013 By GLEN JOHNSON,
> >> >> Associated Press Writer
>
> >> >Hey, we all have to believe in something, right?
>
> >> >Oh, I forgot. No we don't.
>
> >> It's nice to have a few facts to back up our beliefs.
>
> >Based upon two facts, I believe the war can be lost by 2013.
>
> And those facts are...?
Hillary and Barack.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Probably.
Nothing good will come from this election.
Dan
I believe I'll have another beer.
Dan
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is conservative doublespeak saying that "we are screwed".
TMT
Observer
Hillary and Barack are now FACTS?
Observer
Hell, nothing good came from the last 2 "elections".
Jerry
wrote:
>On Fri, 16 May 2008 15:21:01 -0700 (PDT),
>hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> >Based upon two facts, I believe the war can be lost by 2013.
>>>
>>> And those facts are...?
>>
>>Hillary and Barack.
>
>Hillary and Barack are now FACTS?
FICTION
Jerry
<too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>And he would bet your son and daughter that he is right....
>
>Wasn't this the Republican war that was supposed to be won in six
>months?
Convince me that Hilary or Barack can win in six months or less.
I expect Chelsea will be in the front lines since she was trained to
shoot by her mother.
Bob Brock
Yet you are still voting for him.
strabo
Yes Chelsea is being groomed to be your ruler so why would she shoot
by her mother when she could dispense with her and run for president
herself?
As history shows, the aristocracy knows no bounds.
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Curly Surmudgeon
Especially if you vote for a pre-selected candidate of either party.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans, the other white meat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Wasn't this the Republican war that was supposed to be won in six
> months?
No. It was supposed to be six days or six weeks. Six months was
inconceivable to the Conservative and the Republican sheeple.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> In misc.survivalism, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Wasn't this the Republican war that was supposed to be won in six
> > months?
>
> No. It was supposed to be six days or six weeks. Six months was
> inconceivable to the Conservative and the Republican sheeple.
That would be a complete lie. What did Bush tell us when we started in
on all of this?
John R. Carroll
Before the invasion of Iraq, various neo-cons suggested that the war
would be quick, easy, and above all, cheap.
These days they tend to deny that they ever suggested such a thing,
but I'm afraid the record speaks for itself:
http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm
"Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very - an issue for the
future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country.
Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so
there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much
of the burden for their own reconstruction." - Ari Fleischer
"This is not Afghanistan... When we approach the question of Iraq, we
realize here is a country which has a resource. And it's obvious, it's
oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue
each year... $10, $15, even $18 billion... this is not a broke
country." - Richard Armitage
"There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S.
taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people...
and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could
bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or
three years... We're dealing with a country that can really finance
its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." - Paul Wolfowitz
"If you (worry about just) the cost, the money, Iraq is a very
different situation from Afghanistan... Iraq has oil. They have
financial resources." - Donald Rumsfeld
"On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the
responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7
billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq... and
unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the
development fund." - Alan Larson
"I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for
reconstruction, in a sense... (Reconstruction) funds can come from
those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a
variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very
substantial number of billions of dollars in it. - Donald Rumsfeld
So how's that working out?
Well, the New York Times has reported that:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/world/middleeast/12oil.html?ex=1336622400&en=034ced4a02a3dcd3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day of Iraq's declared oil
production over the past four years is unaccounted for and could have
been siphoned off through corruption or smuggling, according to a
draft American government report.
Using an average of $50 a barrel, the report said the discrepancy was
valued at $5 million to $15 million daily.
Iraqi and American officials have previously said that smuggling of
refined products like gasoline and kerosene is probably costing Iraq
billions of dollars a year in lost revenues.
The smuggling of those products is particularly feared because
officials believe that a large fraction of the proceeds go to
insurgent groups.
Adding together both civilian and military financing, the report
concludes that the United States has spent $5.1 billion of the $7.4
billion in American taxpayer money set aside to rebuild the Iraqi
electricity and oil sectors.
The United States has also spent $3.8 billion of Iraqi money on those
sectors, the report says.
Despite those enormous expenditures, the performance is far short of
official goals, and in some cases seems to be declining further.
So let's see... the Bush administration has spent $5 billion of U.S.
taxpayer dollars to rebuild the Iraqi oil sector, and the result is
that an estimated 300 million barrels of oil have gone missing,
putting millions of dollars into the hands of insurgents who are using
the funds to kill American troops.
Way to go!
But just out of curiosity, how come we don't know exactly how much oil
is being stolen?
Mr. Ebel said the lack of modern metering equipment, or measuring
devices, at Iraq's wellheads made it especially difficult to track
smuggling there.
The State Department official agreed that there were no meters at the
wellheads, but said that Iraq's Oil Ministry had signed a contract
with Shell Oil to study the possibility of putting in the meters.
"Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to
last any longer than that," he said. "It won't be a World War III."
--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
claiming the Iraq war wouldn't last long.
Nov. 14, 2002
Let's take a trip down Memory Lane. Shall we?
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Iraq Is All but Won; Now What?"
(Los Angeles Times headline, 4/10/03)
"Now that the combat phase of the war in Iraq is officially over, what
begins
is a debate throughout the entire U.S. government over America's unrivaled
power and how best to use it."
(CBS reporter Joie Chen, 5/4/03)
"Congress returns to Washington this week to a world very different from
the
one members left two weeks ago. The war in Iraq is essentially over and
domestic issues are regaining attention."
(NPR's Bob Edwards, 4/28/03)
"Tommy Franks and the coalition forces have demonstrated the old axiom that
boldness on the battlefield produces swift and relatively bloodless victory.
The three-week swing through Iraq has utterly shattered skeptics'
complaints."
(Fox News Channel's Tony Snow, 4/13/03)
"The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper Westside
liberals,
and a few people here in Washington."
(Charles Krauthammer, Inside Washington, WUSA-TV, 4/19/03)
"We had controversial wars that divided the country. This war united the
country and brought the military back."
(Newsweek's Howard Fineman--MSNBC, 5/7/03)
"We're all neo-cons now."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)
"The war was the hard part. The hard part was putting together a coalition,
getting 300,000 troops over there and all their equipment and winning. And
it
gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but it is not as hard
as
winning a war."
(Fox News Channel's Fred Barnes, 4/10/03)
"Oh, it was breathtaking. I mean I was almost starting to think that we had
become inured to everything that we'd seen of this war over the past three
weeks; all this sort of saturation. And finally, when we saw that it was
such a
just true, genuine expression. It was reminiscent, I think, of the fall of
the
Berlin Wall. And just sort of that pure emotional expression, not
choreographed, not stage-managed, the way so many things these days seem to
be.
Really breathtaking."
(Washington Post reporter Ceci Connolly, appearing on Fox News Channel on
4/9/03, discussing the pulling down of a Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad,
an
event later revealed to have been a U.S. military PSYOPS operation--Los
Angeles
Times, 7/3/04)
Mission Accomplished?
"The war winds down, politics heats up.... Picture perfect. Part
Spider-Man,
part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan. The president seizes the moment on an
aircraft carrier in the Pacific."
(PBS's Gwen Ifill, 5/2/03, on George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished"
speech)
"We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a
guy
who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like
Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want
a
guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The
women
like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple.
We're not like the Brits."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 5/1/03)
"He looked like an alternatively commander in chief, rock star, movie star,
and
one of the guys."
(CNN's Lou Dobbs, on Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' speech, 5/1/03)
Neutralizing the Opposition
"Why don't the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He
did
well today."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)
"What's he going to talk about a year from now, the fact that the war went
too
well and it's over? I mean, don't these things sort of lose their--Isn't
there
a fresh date on some of these debate points?"
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, speaking about Howard Dean--4/9/03)
"If image is everything, how can the Democratic presidential hopefuls
compete
with a president fresh from a war victory?"
(CNN's Judy Woodruff, 5/5/03)
"It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest
context..... And the silence, I think, is that it's clear that nobody can do
anything about it. There isn't anybody who can stop him. The Democrats can't
oppose--cannot oppose him politically."
(Washington Post reporter Jeff Birnbaum-- Fox News Channel, 5/2/03)
Nagging the "Naysayers"
"Now that the war in Iraq is all but over, should the people in Hollywood
who
opposed the president admit they were wrong?"
(Fox News Channel's Alan Colmes, 4/25/03)
"I doubt that the journalists at the New York Times and NPR or at ABC or at
CNN
are going to ever admit just how wrong their negative pronouncements were
over
the past four weeks."
(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/9/03)
"I'm waiting to hear the words 'I was wrong' from some of the world's most
elite journalists, politicians and Hollywood types.... I just wonder, who's
going to be the first elitist to show the character to say: 'Hey, America,
guess what? I was wrong'? Maybe the White House will get an apology, first,
from the New York Times' Maureen Dowd. Now, Ms. Dowd mocked the morality of
this war....
"Do you all remember Scott Ritter, you know, the former chief U.N. weapons
inspector who played chief stooge for Saddam Hussein? Well, Mr. Ritter
actually
told a French radio network that -- quote, 'The United States is going to
leave
Baghdad with its tail between its legs, defeated.' Sorry, Scott. I think
you've
been chasing the wrong tail, again.
"Maybe disgraced commentators and politicians alike, like Daschle, Jimmy
Carter, Dennis Kucinich, and all those others, will step forward tonight and
show the content of their character by simply admitting what we know
already:
that their wartime predictions were arrogant, they were misguided and they
were
dead wrong. Maybe, just maybe, these self-anointed critics will learn from
their mistakes. But I doubt it. After all, we don't call them 'elitists' for
nothing."
(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/10/03)
"Over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this guy
was
amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and so the right
was
so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is going to have to hang
its
head for three or four more years."
(Fox News Channel's Dick Morris, 4/9/03)
"This has been a tough war for commentators on the American left. To hope
for
defeat meant cheering for Saddam Hussein. To hope for victory meant cheering
for President Bush. The toppling of Mr. Hussein, or at least a statue of
him,
has made their arguments even harder to defend. Liberal writers for
ideologically driven magazines like The Nation and for less overtly
political
ones like The New Yorker did not predict a defeat, but the terrible
consequences many warned of have not happened. Now liberal commentators must
address the victory at hand and confront an ascendant conservative
juggernaut
that asserts United States might can set the world right."
(New York Times reporter David Carr, 4/16/03)
"Well, the hot story of the week is victory.... The Tommy Franks-Don
Rumsfeld
battle plan, war plan, worked brilliantly, a three-week war with mercifully
few
American deaths or Iraqi civilian deaths.... There is a lot of work yet to
do,
but all the naysayers have been humiliated so far.... The final word on this
is, hooray."
(Fox News Channel's Morton Kondracke, 4/12/03)
"Some journalists, in my judgment, just can't stand success, especially a
few
liberal columnists and newspapers and a few Arab reporters."
(CNN's Lou Dobbs, 4/14/03)
"Sean Penn is at it again. The Hollywood star takes out a full-page ad out
in
the New York Times bashing George Bush. Apparently he still hasn't figured
out
we won the war."
(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 5/30/03)
Cakewalk?
"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military
intervention.... The president will give an order. [The attack] will be
rapid,
accurate and dazzling.... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi
people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."
(Christopher Hitchens, in a 1/28/03 debate-- cited in the Observer,
3/30/03)
"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that
military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that
wager?"
(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03)
"It won't take weeks. You know that, professor. Our military machine will
crush
Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will."
(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03)
"There's no way. There's absolutely no way. They may bomb for a matter of
weeks, try to soften them up as they did in Afghanistan. But once the United
States and Britain unleash, it's maybe hours. They're going to fold like
that."
(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03)
"He [Saddam Hussein] actually thought that he could stop us and win the
debate
worldwide. But he didn't--he didn't bargain on a two- or three week war. I
actually thought it would be less than two weeks."
(NBC reporter Fred Francis, Chris Matthews Show, 4/13/03)
Weapons of Mass Destruction
NPR's Mara Liasson: Where there was a debate about whether or not Iraq had
these weapons of mass destruction and whether we can find it...
Brit Hume: No, there wasn't. Nobody seriously argued that he didn't have
them
beforehand. Nobody.
(Fox News Channel, April 6, 2003)
"Speaking to the U.N. Security Council last week, Secretary of State Colin
Powell made so strong a case that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is in
material
breach of U.N. resolutions that only the duped, the dumb and the desperate
could ignore it."
(Cal Thomas, syndicated column, 2/12/03)
"Saddam could decide to take Baghdad with him. One Arab intelligence
officer
interviewed by Newsweek spoke of 'the green mushroom' over Baghdad--the
modern-day caliph bidding a grotesque bio-chem farewell to the land of the
living alongside thousands of his subjects as well as his enemies. Saddam
wants
to be remembered. He has the means and the demonic imagination. It is up to
U.S. armed forces to stop him before he can achieve notoriety for all time."
(Newsweek, 3/17/03)
"Chris, more than anything else, real vindication for the administration.
One,
credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Two, you know what? There
were a lot of terrorists here, really bad guys. I saw them."
(MSNBC reporter Bob Arnot, 4/9/03)
"Even in the flush of triumph, doubts will be raised. Where are the
supplies of
germs and poison gas and plans for nukes to justify pre-emption? (Freed
scientists will lead us to caches no inspectors could find.) What about
remaining danger from Baathist torturers and war criminals forming pockets
of
resistance and plotting vengeance? (Their death wish is our command.)"
(New York Times' William Safire, 4/10/03)
--
John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
<jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
Nice, long diversion. And so you lie via answering a question that
was not asked, and ignore what Bush said.
You'll find in his State of the Union address.
Jerry
<jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
>hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> That would be a complete lie. What did Bush tell us when we started in
>> on all of this?
>
>Before the invasion of Iraq, various neo-cons suggested that the war
>would be quick, easy, and above all, cheap.
>
>These days they tend to deny that they ever suggested such a thing,
>but I'm afraid the record speaks for itself:
>http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm
He asked you what Bush said, not what another one of Illinois' biggest
libs had to say. Apparently they silenced her since the link goes
nowhere.
Gunner
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> No. It was supposed to be six days or six weeks. Six months was
>> inconceivable to the Conservative and the Republican sheeple.
>
>That would be a complete lie. What did Bush tell us when we started in
>on all of this?
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It
will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been
found, stopped and defeated. (Applause.)
,,,,,,,,,
Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will
direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy,
every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every
financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the
disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.
This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a
decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not
look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground
troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated
strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy
campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic
strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.
We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another,
drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest.
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to
terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make.
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.)
From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support
terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
Gunner
Quotes and Facts on Iraq
"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us.
Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a
price."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather
September 13, 2001
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Sw8leOyTFo
http://www.wavsource.com/news/20010911a.htm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DbYGYiGjpUs
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"My position is very clear: The time has come for
decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's
weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan
Resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam
Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know
that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he's used them
in the past, and that he's doing everything he can to build more.
Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.
Democracy will not spring up by itself overnight in a multi-ethnic,
complicated society that's suffered under one repressive regime after
another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help
to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open
society. All Iraqis, including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, deserve to be
represented. This is not just a moral imperative. It's a security
imperative. It is in America's national interest to help build an
Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic,
tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner, and
such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
Speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
October 7, 2002
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#bUn5mYtOga
http://youtube.com/watch?v=U2JfndMusfc
http://csis.org/component/option,com_csis_events/task,view/id,167/
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"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. Should he
succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security
landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects
American security.
This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision
I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be
hard, but I cast it with conviction."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Ze0sYbagHe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"In the next century, the community of nations may see
more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state
with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to
terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the
world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in
his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they
can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the
United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of
mass destruction program."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#tUg6SadaTK
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
[Link Directly To This Entry]
America is threatened by an "unholy axis":
"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the
world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to
build a new era of peace and security.
We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists,
international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century
predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And
they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall
into their hands.
Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological
weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals
seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of
this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the
Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological
weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Heu6cOcHyc
http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/SOTU98/address.html
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in
power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his
region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi
government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors,
a government that respects the rights of its people."
President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#kO7eVCiIta
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more
troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is
incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted
for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#wR6nIpoLli
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, 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."
Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#lIo0vAeGDa
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply
and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the
international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his
arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am
certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since
1983."
Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#voY0lOeonG
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is
thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and
he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other
dictators."
Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#oaT1baqjeJ
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/
[Link Directly To This Entry]
Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy
since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by
President Clinton, states:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to
promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that
regime."
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Lof9huGeMd
http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm
[Link Directly To This Entry]
In 2003, the United Nations scheduled Saddam's regime
to chair the UN Conference on Disarmament. (Allied forces liberated
Baghdad on April 9th, 2003, and Saddam was found hiding in a hole on
December 12th, 2003.)
United Nations
January 16, 2003
Press Release
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT TO OPEN 2003 SESSION ON 20 JANUARY
The Conference on Disarmament, the world's sole multilateral forum for
disarmament negotiations, will open its 2003 session on Monday, 20
January, at the Palais des Nations. The first public plenary will
take place at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 21 January.
The session will open under the presidency of Ambassador Rakesh Sood,
Permanent Representative of India to the Conference on Disarmament.
The presidency of the Conference rotates amongst its member States
according to the English alphabetical order; each President holds
office for four working weeks. During 2003, the presidency of the
Conference also will be held by Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran,
Iraq, Ireland, and Israel. The Conference's annual session is divided
into three parts. The first part of the session will conclude on 28
March; the second will run from 12 May to 27 June; and the third will
be held from 28 July to 10 September.
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#guR1YisAmg
http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/dc0301e.htm
[Link Directly To This Entry]
Associated Press
February 13, 1999
Bin Laden reportedly leaves Afghanistan, whereabouts unknown
Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of
plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left
Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday.
Taliban authorities in the militia's southern stronghold of Kandahar
refused to either confirm or deny reports that bin Laden had left the
country.
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who
openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.
Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand
over bin Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in
Kenya and Tanzania, demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist
activities.
The Taliban did promise that bin Laden would not use Afghanistan as a
staging arena for terrorist activities.
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#soL0pEswIs
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/
[Link Directly To This Entry]
An Iraqi man calls into a radio show, which had as a
guest Andrea Buffa from "United for Peace & Justice," and tries to get
her to answer a single question.
March 10, 2003
KVI 570 AM, Seattle, WA
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#75w4XIO9tHU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=75w4XIO9tHU
[Link Directly To This Entry]
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Were we right to go to this war alone [sic],
basically without the Europeans behind us [sic]? Was that something
we had to do?
SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (Democrat, North Carolina): I think that we were
right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I
think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council
hold us hostage. And I think Saddam Hussein being gone is good. Good
for the American people, good for the security of that region of the
world, and good for the Iraqi people.
MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president,
when basically he saw the French weren't with us and the Germans and
the Russians weren't with us, was he right to say, "We're going
anyway"?
EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.
MATTHEWS: You believe in that?
EDWARDS: Yes.
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on MSNBC's "Hardball"
October 13, 2003
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#b2y8quAoBn
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/
[Link Directly To This Entry]
The Guardian
February 6, 1999
Saddam link to Bin Laden
By Julian Borger
Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden,
bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical,
biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources
and Iraqi opposition officials.
The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in
late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi,
Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful
secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in
Iraq.
News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney
general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack
involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's
a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are
being considered for use."
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#tO6tWImvU6
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,314700,00.html
[Link Directly To This Entry]
Dan Rather, anchorman for CBS News, appears on The
David Letterman Show shortly after 9-11. The show had been off the
air for a week.
Below are transcript excerpts.
RATHER: President Bush made what I think is his strongest statement
yet when he went to the Pentagon this afternoon. He was
Giuliani-esque -- I don't think he would mind me saying that, no. He
looked the camera straight in the eye -- unblinking -- and said "Osama
Dead or Alive."
[Audience applause]
RATHER: And with what we're dealing with here, which is not one man
[Bin Laden], it's a hydra-headed operation that's in 55 countries
around the world. Now granted, the focus is on, and we should
understand, not just Afghanistan -- Afghanistan, Sudan, Iran, Iraq,
Syria, and Libya.
RATHER: They hate America. They hate us. This is one thing that
makes this war different. They don't want territory, they don't want
what we got -- they want to kill us and destroy us. It's a heavy
statement, but it's true -- they seek to accomplish our death. Death
as a people, as a society, and a culture.
LETTERMAN: Why?
RATHER: Who can explain madmen, and who can explain evil.
RATHER: Saddam Hussein, if he isn't connect to this, he's connected to
any other things. He's part of this 'Hate America' thing. You have
to understand, Saddam Hussein is somebody I have sat this close, eye
to eye.
LETTERMAN: The other day, Dick Cheney -- who to me seemed like the
real deal -- Dick Cheney was talking about how counter-intelligence
and espionage is dirty business, and maybe now we were going to have
to get down in the mud with these people, and I thought well Holy God
wasn't that the way it was supposed to be?
RATHER: This [war] will be long, the casualties will be greater. Let's
face it, we've already had more casualties, I mean five thousand of
our fellow Americans have been killed already. When we talk about
casualties, we've suffered casualties, but there will be more. When
we send out sons and daughters into this kind of war, into this
Twilight Zone that they're going, there will be great casualties. Now,
it remains to be seen whether we have the staying power, that's
basically up to you, and me, and everybody in the audience, and every
American, whether we have the staying power, whether we have the will
to stay with it, is the big question. But you say 'Will it do
anything?' I certainly think it can, but what would we think of
ourselves if we didn't try.
RATHER: This will take years, this may very well take another four,
eight, ten years. The world's view of us, in many places with many
people, is we just don't have the stomach to stick anything out. Well,
we were great during World War II, but this is a new generation,
they're all spoiled.
Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor
Interview on "The David Letterman Show"
September 17, 2001
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Uzt8ha4DsW
http://www.livevideo.com/video/
B0BE9375C1C54920A32C79C5F9AB2981/
dan-rather-on-letterman-just-a.aspx
[Link Directly To This Entry]
Click Photo to Enlarge Newsweek
January 11, 1999
Saddam + Bin Laden? America's two enemies are courting.
By Christopher Dickey, Gregory Vistica, and Russell Watson
In the no-fly zones of northern and southern Iraq, Saddam Hussein's
gunners blindly fired surface-to-air missiles at patrolling American
and British warplanes. In Yemen, terrorists seized a group of British
Commonwealth and American tourists, and four of the hostages died in a
shootout. In Tel Aviv, the US Embassy abruptly closed down after
receiving a terrorist threat. Perhaps it was just a typical week in
the Middle East. But in a region where no one puts much faith in
blind coincidence, last week's conjunction of Iraqi antiaircraft fire
and terrorism aimed at the countries that had just bombed Iraq
convinced some that a new conspiracy was afoot.
Here's what is known so far: Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of
supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network
overseas -- assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism
network. US sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists,
including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi
exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two US embassies in
Africa last summer. US intelligence has had reports of contacts
between low-level agents. Saddam and bin Laden have interests -- and
enemies -- in common. Both men want US military forces out of Saudi
Arabia. Bin Laden has been calling for all-out war on Americans,
using as his main pretext Washington's role in bombing and boycotting
Iraq. Now bin Laden is engaged in something of a public-relations
offensive, having granted recent interviews, one for NEWSWEEK. He
says "any American who pays taxes to his government" is a legitimate
target.
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#tH6sEmCinI
http://www.lexisnexis.com
[Link Directly To This Entry]
Video for some of these quotes, click to play.
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being
put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I
have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is
something I have followed for more than a decade.
For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children
in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.
The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about
the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a
commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.
I ended up voting for the Resolution after carefully reviewing the
information and intelligence I had available, talking with people
whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other
factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this
decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a
potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my
preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate
cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to
disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.
With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I
do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world
community today that there would be a willingness to take on very
difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am
talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo,
where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save
the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as
the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far
preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the
United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such
horrible suffering, we did act."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During a meeting with "Code Pink" at the US Capitol
March 6, 2003
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Cuf1SojhAy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_KEWUU33Lg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with
the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to
defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use
them; we should be under no illusion about that."
Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
In a Los Angeles Times editorial: "A 'Big Cat' With Nothing to
Lose"
February 6, 2003; Page B17
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Sou1xYeoSM
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/
opinion/la-oe-wilson6feb06,1,194637.story
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/
access/283963011.html?dids=283963011:283963011&FMT=ABS
&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Feb+6%2C+2003&pub=Los+Angeles+Times
[Link Directly To This Entry]
BILL MOYERS: President Bush's recent speech to the American Enterprise
Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by
Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You
agree with that?
JOE WILSON: I agree with that. Sure.
BILL MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that?
"We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the
United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we
are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be
removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this
direct and growing threat." You agree with that?
JOE WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in
that speech, as he did in the State of the Union Address, is we will
liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true.
Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
During an interview with Bill Moyers
February 28, 2003
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Ca1oFeLenC
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_wilson.html
[Link Directly To This Entry]
The Washington Post
January 23, 1999; Page A02
Official Cites Gains Against Bin Laden
By Vernon Loeb
Richard A. Clarke, the Clinton administration's senior
counterterrorism official, provided new information in defense of
President Clinton's decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the
El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for
Osama bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings.
While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile
attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site
that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S.
government is "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a
powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach
and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.
Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance
was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that
intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past
operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front
in Sudan.
Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike,
Clarke said, the president "would have been derelict in his duties if
he didn't blow up the facility."
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#iR3SycLjoW
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/
38284880.html?did=38284880&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am
keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons
is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Reb6pNPrWh
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological
weapons. There's no question about that."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on "Meet The Press"
November 17, 2002
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#viL8sPidHw
http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=375
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end
of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on
focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam
Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by
Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological
weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US House of Representatives
October 10, 2002
Congressional Record, p. H7777
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#tEe1beZmiR
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H7777&dbname=2002_record
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat
to the United States and to our allies.
If Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we're
clearly going to have to do something about it."
Howard Dean, Democratic Presidential Candidate
During an interview on "Face The Nation"
September 29, 2002
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#At6lAvaPtR
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_092902.pdf
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement
that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not
engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of
mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal
constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and
justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Bu2pEtWhKr
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10145&dbname=2002_record
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"It is the duty of any president, in the final
analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam
Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12
years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave
and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with
us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to
his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support
their doing so."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq
March 17, 2003
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#mEi8CutdRD
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030331&s=lizza033103
[Link Directly To This Entry]
Wesley Clark, 2004 Democratic presidential candidate,
discusses Saddam's WMD:
WESLEY CLARK: He does have weapons of mass destruction.
MILES O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically?
WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.
MILES O'BRIEN: All right, well, where are, where is, they've been
there a long time and thus far we've got 12 empty casings. Where are
all these weapons?
WESLEY CLARK: There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different
places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People
in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military,
the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security
organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and
deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this.
Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate
During an interview on CNN
January 18, 2003
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#oB1sTAlyEj
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/18/smn.05.html
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and
gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate
weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit
strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's
cause."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on commencement of military strikes against Iraq
March 20, 2003
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#cI2osPFeDa
http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=191582
[Link Directly To This Entry]
Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil"
countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:
"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all
present serious problems for the United States -- they're
dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear
and present threat to our country is not the same from those three
countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to
our country."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"
February 24, 2002
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#ioN4aLlmAj
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be
better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we
are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be
President, or the credibility to be elected President.
No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is
better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Drake University in Iowa
December 16, 2003
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Em0acOsMiP
http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/dec03/193182.asp?format=print
[Link Directly To This Entry]
John Edwards, while voting YES to the Resolution
authorizing US military force against Iraq:
"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not
support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine
the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I
believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security
requires us to do both, and we can."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Authorization of the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"
October 10, 2002
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#abE0myNkIg
http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20021010_iraq.html
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam
Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him,
and I support the fact that we did disarm him."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
During a Democratic Primary Debate at the University of South
Carolina
May 3, 2003
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#uB7brEgjce
http://www.vote-smart.org/debate_transcripts/trans_1.pdf
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a
serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal
weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#meC4KnBuxD
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html
[Link Directly To This Entry]
John Kerry, while voting YES to the Resolution
authorizing US military force against Iraq:
"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."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#gAf8cHfIri
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I
firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's
about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam
Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through
every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological
weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing
everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his
longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less
than a year away.
The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of
inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember
the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the
choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were
imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to
prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a
terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far
worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam
Hussein's Iraq."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Iraqi Dictator Must Go"
September 12, 2002
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Fop3rOUbrH
http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein.
He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We
all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly
grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation.
He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the
invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act
of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs
on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and
trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own
military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his
misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations
Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq
disclose its weapons programs and disarm.
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the
Persian Gulf War.
In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now
affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious
consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on
Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and
make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously
admitted to possessing."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Georgetown University
January 23, 2003
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#obD8blIHum
http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/cfm/record.cfm?id=189831
[Link Directly To This Entry]
Congressman Gephardt links Saddam with the threat of
terrorists nuking US cities:
BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent: And with us now is the
Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt. Congressman, you
supported taking military action in Iraq. Do you think now it was the
right thing to do?
REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, D-MO, Democratic Presidential Candidate: I do.
I base my determination on what I heard from the CIA. I went out
there a couple of times and talked to everybody, including George
Tenet. I talked to people in the Clinton administration.
SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you, do you feel, Congressman, that
you were misled?
GEPHARDT: I don't. I asked very direct questions of the top people in
the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And
they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had
the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of
mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder
truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We
have to prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I
voted to do this.
Congressman Richard Gephardt (Democrat, Montana)
Interviewed on CBS News "Face the Nation"
November 2, 2003
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Ect1IpgYlV
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/03/ftn/printable581509.shtml
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"We have not reached parity with them. We have the
right to kill 4 million Americans -- 2 million of them children -- and
to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands.
Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and
biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that
have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans'] chemical and
biological weapons."
Islamic terrorist group "Al Qaeda"
June 12, 2002
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#oX1nOhykE8
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP38802
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"[W]e have evidence of meetings between Iraqi
officials and leaders of al Qaeda, and testimony that Iraqi agents
helped train al Qaeda operatives to use chemical and biological
weapons. We also know that al Qaeda leaders have been, and are now,
harbored in Iraq.
Having reached the conclusion I have about the clear and present
danger Saddam represents to the U.S., I want to give the president a
limited but strong mandate to act against Saddam."
Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)
In a Wall Street Journal editorial Lieberman authored titled: "Why
Democrats Should Support the President on Iraq"
October 7, 2002
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Wri9BilASc
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002391
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"Dear Mr. President: ... 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
Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's
refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Sincerely,
John Kerry, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick
Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey
Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne
Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim
Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom
Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms,
Rick Santorum.
Letter to President Clinton
Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others
October 9, 1998
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#oPi7NipoMS
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has
proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it
will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Pa3cOFlEv2
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm
[Link Directly To This Entry]
Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a
"final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent
threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States
should consider ways to oust Saddam Hussein.
"Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist
networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that
could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of
these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a
class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning
with that government should be on the table."
The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
February 13, 2002
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#uL6UnbEla5
http://query.nytimes.com/search/
abstract?res=F10B1FFF3D5B0C708DDDAB0894DA404482
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October
of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is
seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
Robert C. Byrd
Former Ku Klux Klan recruiter, currently a US Senator (Democrat,
West Virginia)
Addressing the US Senate
October 3, 2002
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#aH2aMpkoSE
http://australianpolitics.com/news/2002/10/02-10-03a.shtml
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance
-- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and
which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to
live in peace."
Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Co7yEWisM2
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever
developed.
13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983
and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed
during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The
amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about
1,000 tonnes."
Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#aRb7bYgHac
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"The recent inspection find in the private home of a
scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it
relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has
long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of
private individuals. ...we cannot help but think that the case might
not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to
make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing
them in private homes."
Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Wei7bOcUrk
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council
on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this
biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in
the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this
production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it
declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the
declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be
found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing
evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in
1991."
Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#aI2AlucOhI
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the
stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.
What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some
ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to
develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to
press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the
solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its
will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to
rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Od8bLAfoX3
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
[Link Directly To This Entry]
CNN: How did Hussein intend to use the weapon, once it
was completed?
HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction,
nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence
estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So,
the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more
aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using
biological weapons. Now he's using them through surrogates like al
Qaeda, but we expect he'll use them more aggressively then.
Dr. Khidhir Hamza, former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist for 20 years
Interviewed on CNN
October 22, 2001
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#lOg4gArOLu
http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/22/hamza.cnna/
[Link Directly To This Entry]
CNN
October 10, 2002
House gives Bush authority for war with Iraq
The House voted 296-133 to give Bush the authority to use U.S.
military force to make Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions requiring it
to give up weapons of mass destruction.
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Puc8fOCzXy
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/iraq.us
[Link Directly To This Entry]
CNN
October 11, 2002
Senate approves Iraq war resolution
In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted
77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein
refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N.
resolutions.
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#vAm1nUcPoM
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us
[Link Directly To This Entry]
On December 12th, 2003, US forces captured Saddam
Hussein as he hid in a dirt hole in Adwar, 10 miles from Tikrit.
"Ladies and gentlemen, we got him," Paul Bremer, the US administrator
in Iraq, announced. "The tyrant is a prisoner."
At a Baghdad press conference officials showed a videotape of Saddam's
inspection following his capture. When the former dictator's face
appeared onscreen, Iraqi journalists in the audience immediately
jumped up shouting uncontrollably "Death to Saddam!" and "Go to Hell
Saddam!" and later broke down sobbing.
"He was caught like a rat," said Major General Ray Odierno of the 4th
Infantry Division. "It was ironic that he was in a hole in the ground
across the river from the great palaces he built using all the money
he robbed from the Iraqi people."
In Baghdad, radio stations played celebratory music, residents fired
small arms in the air in celebration, and others drove through the
streets, shouting, "They got Saddam! They got Saddam!"
The former dictator was found with a pistol and $750,000 in US
currency.
Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez said "Saddam Hussein will never
return to a position of power from which he can punish, terrorize,
intimidate and exploit the Iraqi people as the did for more than 35
years."
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#eI5pUfoAiN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZYF3w_8Tgk
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is
imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their
intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this
threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all
words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the
sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is
not an option."
President Bush
State of the Union address
January 28, 2003
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Dh0deIOfeR
http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"We are finding people even as we speak. Yet we know
that there is a very grim task ahead to do everything we can to find
every person, to account for every single person who went to work.
That is all they did: they went to work, on a beautiful September day
in New York.
We will also stand united behind our President as he and his advisors
plan the necessary actions to demonstrate America's resolve and
commitment. Not only to seek out an exact punishment on the
perpetrators, but to make very clear that not only those who harbor
terrorists, but those who in any way aid or comfort them whatsoever
will now face the wrath of our country. And I hope that that message
has gotten through to everywhere it needs to be heard. You are either
with America in our time of need or you are not.
We also stand united behind our resolve -- as this resolution so
clearly states -- to recover and rebuild in the aftermath of these
tragic acts. You know, New York was not an accidental choice for
these madmen, these terrorists, these instruments of evil."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
September 12, 2001
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#elY8fRInrE
http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=235656
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"The global community -- in the form of the United
Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that
the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to
pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We
must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.
But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and
chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now.
Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies
and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems
like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these
deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle
East.
As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense
destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to
wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the
fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give
us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future.
We no longer have that luxury.
September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal
differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes
from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70
other countries around the world, including our own.
There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I
do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that
after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in
the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against
civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated
intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence
could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take
that chance? We cannot!
The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop
weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans.
The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over
the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the
threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so
serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks
-- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal
with that threat."
Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)
Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Pe3eIHamyI
http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html
[Link Directly To This Entry]
UN weapons inspectors were forced to leave Iraq in
1998:
CNN
November 5, 1998
U.N. Security Council votes to condemn Iraq
The United Nations Security Council late Thursday voted unanimously to
condemn Iraq and to demand that Baghdad immediately resume cooperation
with U.N. weapons inspectors. Baghdad has already said it will not
comply.
The resolution called Iraq's decision last week to halt cooperation
with the U.N. Special Commission a "flagrant violation" of the 1991
resolution on Iraqi disarmament. It is the 45th U.N. resolution
involving Iraq since the country invaded Kuwait in 1990.
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Et9LuFlwaG
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9811/05/un.iraq.02
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I
firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's
about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam
Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through
every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological
weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing
everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his
longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less
than a year away.
I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat
to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the
world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.
What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear.
Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything
to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility
that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can
doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had weapons of mass
destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can
hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam
would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.
The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do
whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq
armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam
Hussein.
The United States must lead an international effort to remove the
regime of Saddam Hussein -- and to assure that Iraq fulfills its
obligations to the international community.
This is not an easy decision, and it carries many risks. It will also
carry costs, certainly in resources, and almost certainly in lives.
After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is
far greater than the risk of action.
We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass
destruction -- the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to
obtain them.
The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of
inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember
the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the
choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were
imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to
prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a
terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far
worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam
Hussein's Iraq."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
Addressing the US Senate
September 12, 2002
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#nOb6YoJuxb
http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"Dear Mr. President:
The events of September 11 have highlighted the vulnerability of the
United States to determined terrorists. As we work to clean up
Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to
eliminate the threat from Iraq.
This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors
last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam
Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.
The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained.
For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to
acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We
have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against
the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must
directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later.
Mr. President, all indications are that in the interest of our own
national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power."
Sincerely,
Congressman Harold Ford (Democrat, Tennessee)
Senator Bob Graham (Democrat, Florida)
Congressman Tom Lantos (Democrat, California)
Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)
Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas)
Senator Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina)
Congressman Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois)
Senator Trent Lott (Republican, Mississippi)
Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona)
Senator Richard Shelby (Republican, Alabama)
Letter to President Bush
December 5, 2001
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#buC9BrswAg
http://www.house.gov/ford/12_06_01a.htm
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"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. He lies and cheats;
he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons
inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against
enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations,
the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are
simply the facts."
Congressman Henry Waxman (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Congress
October 10, 2002
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Cy7hyDcUdi
http://www.house.gov/waxman/news_files/news_statements_res_iraq_10_10_02.htm
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be
weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and
we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future.
Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own
people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass
destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#baS7aVmeAo
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
[Link Directly To This Entry]
"Ten years after the Gulf War and Saddam is still
there and still continues to stockpile weapons of mass destruction.
Now there are suggestions he is working with al Qaeda, which means the
very terrorists who attacked the United States last September may now
have access to chemical and biological weapons."
James P. Rubin, President Clinton's State Department spokesman
In a PBS documentary titled "Saddam's Ultimate Solution"
July 11, 2002
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Fid4hOKidO
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/saddam/
[Link Directly To This Entry]
Full text of Resolution authorizing US military force
against Iraq.
US Senators who voted YES to authorize the use of United States Armed
Forces against Iraq:
Allard, Wayne (R-CO)
Allen, George (R-VA)
Baucus, Max (D-MT)
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Bennett, Robert (R-UT)
Biden, Joseph (D-DE)
Bond, Christopher (R-MO)
Breaux, John (D-LA)
Brownback, Sam (R-KS)
Bunning, Jim (R-KY)
Burns, Conrad (R-MT)
Campbell, Ben (R-CO)
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
Carnahan, Jean (D-MO)
Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
Cleland, Max (D-GA)
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
Cochran, Thad (R-MS)
Collins, Susan (R-ME)
Craig, Larry (R-ID)
Crapo, Michael (R-ID)
Daschle, Tom (D-SD)
DeWine, Mike (R-OH)
Dodd, Christopher (D-CT)
Domenici, Pete (R-NM)
Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)
Edwards, John (D-NC)
Ensign, John (R-NV)
Enzi, Michael (R-WY)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Fitzgerald, Peter (R-IL)
Frist, Bill (R-TN)
Gramm, Phil (R-TX)
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)
Gregg, Judd (R-NH)
Hagel, Chuck (R-NE)
Harkin, Tom (D-IA)
Hatch, Orrin (R-UT)
Helms, Jesse (R-NC)
Hollings, Ernest (D-SC)
Hutchinson, Tim (R-AR)
Hutchison, Kay (R-TX)
Inhofe, James (R-OK)
Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
Kerry, John (D-MA)
Kohl, Herb (D-WI)
Kyl, Jon (R-AZ)
Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
Lott, Trent (R-MS)
Lugar, Richard (R-IN)
McCain, John (R-AZ)
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
Miller, Zell (D-GA)
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)
Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
Nickles, Don (R-OK)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Roberts, Pat (R-KS)
Rockefeller, John (D-WV)
Santorum, Rick (R-PA)
Schumer, Charles (D-NY)
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL)
Shelby, Richard (R-AL)
Smith, Robert (R-NH)
Smith, Gordon (R-OR)
Snowe, Olympia (R-ME)
Specter, Arlen (R-PA)
Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
Thomas, Craig (R-WY)
Thompson, Fred (R-TN)
Thurmond, Strom (R-SC)
Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)
Voinovich, George (R-OH)
Warner, John (R-VA)
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Li6mUSanCu
[Link Directly To This Entry]
Full text of Resolution authorizing US military force
against Iraq.
US Congressional Representatives who voted YES to authorize the use of
United States Armed Forces against Iraq:
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#lE6HardHSh
[Link Directly To This Entry]
US State Department
November 4, 1998
Bin Laden, Atef Indicted in U.S. Federal Court for African Bombings
New York -- Usama bin Laden and Muhammad Atef were indicted November 4
in Manhattan federal court for the August 7 bombings of the US
embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and for
conspiring to kill Americans outside the United States.
Bin Laden's "al Qaeda" organization functioned both on its own and
through other terrorist organizations, including the Al Jihad group
based in Egypt, the Islamic Group also known as el Gamaa Islamia led
at one time by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, and a number of other jihad
groups in countries such as Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and
Somalia.
Bin Laden, the US Attorney charged, engaged in business transactions
on behalf of Al Qaeda, including purchasing warehouses for storage of
explosives, transporting weapons, and establishing a series of
companies in Sudan to provide income to al Qaeda and as a cover for
the procurement of explosives, weapons, and chemicals, and for the
travel of operatives.
According to the indictment, bin Laden and al Qaeda forged alliances
with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of
the Government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah
with the goal of working together against their common enemies in the
West, particularly the United States.
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of
Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on
particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the
indictment said.
Beginning in 1992, bin Laden allegedly issued through his "fatwah"
committees a series of escalating "fatwahs" against the United States,
certain military personnel, and, eventually in February 1998, a
"fatwah" stating that Muslims should kill Americans -- including
civilians -- anywhere in the world they can be found.
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#bU0cUbIjUm
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/
Bin_Laden_Atef_Indicted_in_U.S._Federal_Court_for_African_Bombings.html
[Link Directly To This Entry]
US Senators who voted YES to the "PATRIOT ACT" -
October 25, 2001:
Measure Number: H.R. 3162 (Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 )
Measure Title: A bill to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United
States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory
tools, and for other purposes.
Akaka, Daniel (D-HI)
Allard, Wayne (R-CO)
Allen, George (R-VA)
Baucus, Max (D-MT)
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Bennett, Robert (R-UT)
Biden, Joseph (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond, Christopher (R-MO)
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)
Breaux, John (D-LA)
Brownback, Sam (R-KS)
Bunning, Jim (R-KY)
Burns, Conrad (R-MT)
Byrd, Robert (D-WV)
Campbell, Ben (R-CO)
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
Carnahan, Jean (D-MO)
Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
Chafee, Lincoln (R-RI)
Cleland, Max (D-GA)
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
Cochran, Thad (R-MS)
Collins, Susan (R-ME)
Conrad, Kent (D-ND)
Corzine, Jon (D-NJ)
Craig, Larry (R-ID)
Crapo, Michael (R-ID)
Daschle, Tom (D-SD)
Dayton, Mark (D-MN)
DeWine, Mike (R-OH)
Dodd, Christopher (D-CT)
Domenici, Pete (R-NM)
Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)
Durbin, Richard (D-IL)
Edwards, John (D-NC)
Ensign, John (R-NV)
Enzi, Michael (R-WY)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Fitzgerald, Peter (R-IL)
Frist, Bill (R-TN)
Graham, Bob (D-FL)
Gramm, Phil (R-TX)
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)
Gregg, Judd (R-NH)
Hagel, Chuck (R-NE)
Harkin, Tom (D-IA)
Hatch, Orrin (R-UT)
Helms, Jesse (R-NC)
Hollings, Ernest (D-SC)
Hutchinson, Tim (R-AR)
Hutchison, Kay (R-TX)
Inhofe, James (R-OK)
Inouye, Daniel (D-HI)
Jeffords, Jim (I-VT)
Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
Kennedy, Edward (D-MA)
Kerry, John (D-MA)
Kohl, Herb (D-WI)
Kyl, Jon (R-AZ)
Leahy, Patrick (D-VT)
Levin, Carl (D-MI)
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
Lott, Trent (R-MS)
Lugar, Richard (R-IN)
McCain, John (R-AZ)
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
Mikulski, Barbara (D-MD)
Miller, Zell (D-GA)
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)
Murray, Patty (D-WA)
Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
Nickles, Don (R-OK)
Reed, Jack (D-RI)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Roberts, Pat (R-KS)
Rockefeller, John (D-WV)
Santorum, Rick (R-PA)
Sarbanes, Paul (D-MD)
Schumer, Charles (D-NY)
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL)
Shelby, Richard (R-AL)
Smith, Robert (R-NH)
Smith, Gordon (R-OR)
Snowe, Olympia (R-ME)
Specter, Arlen (R-PA)
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI)
Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
Thomas, Craig (R-WY)
Thompson, Fred (R-TN)
Thurmond, Strom (R-SC)
Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)
Voinovich, George (R-OH)
Warner, John (R-VA)
Wellstone, Paul (D-MN)
Wyden, Ron (D-OR)
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#wiD2SafdoE
[Link Directly To This Entry]
US Senators who voted YES to reauthorize the "PATRIOT
ACT" - March 2, 2006:
Measure Number: H.R. 3199 (USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization
Act of 2005)
Measure Title: A bill to extend and modify authorities needed to
combat terrorism, and for other purposes.
Alexander, Lamar (R-TN)
Allard, Wayne (R-CO)
Allen, George (R-VA)
Baucus, Max (D-MT)
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Bennett, Robert (R-UT)
Biden, Joseph (D-DE)
Bond, Christopher (R-MO)
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)
Brownback, Sam (R-KS)
Bunning, Jim (R-KY)
Burns, Conrad (R-MT)
Burr, Richard (R-NC)
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
Chafee, Lincoln (R-RI)
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA)
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
Coburn, Tom (R-OK)
Cochran, Thad (R-MS)
Coleman, Norm (R-MN)
Collins, Susan (R-ME)
Conrad, Kent (D-ND)
Cornyn, Jon (R-TX)
Craig, Larry (R-ID)
Crapo, Michael (R-ID)
Dayton, Mark (D-MN)
DeMint, Jim (R-SC)
DeWine, Mike (R-OH)
Dodd, Christopher (D-CT)
Dole, Elizabeth (R-NC)
Domenici, Pete (R-NM)
Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)
Durbin, Richard (D-IL)
Ensign, John (R-NV)
Enzi, Michael (R-WY)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Frist, Bill (R-TN)
Graham, Lindsey (R-SC)
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)
Gregg, Judd (R-NH)
Hagel, Chuck (R-NE)
Hatch, Orrin (R-UT)
Hutchison, Kay (R-TX)
Inhofe, James (R-OK)
Isakson, Johnny (R-GA)
Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
Kennedy, Edward (D-MA)
Kerry, John (D-MA)
Kohl, Herb (D-WI)
Kyl, Jon (R-AZ)
Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)
Lautenberg, Frank (D-NJ)
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
Lott, Trent (R-MS)
Lugar, Richard (R-IN)
Martinez, Mel (R-FL)
McCain, John (R-AZ)
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
Menendez, Robert (D-NJ)
Mikulski, Barbara (D-MD)
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
Obama, Barack (D-IL)
Pryor, Mark (D-AR)
Reed, Jack (D-RI)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Roberts, Pat (R-KS)
Rockefeller, John (D-WV)
Salazar, Ken (D-CO)
Santorum, Rick (R-PA)
Sarbanes, Paul (D-MD)
Schumer, Charles (D-NY)
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL)
Shelby, Richard (R-AL)
Smith, Gordon (R-OR)
Snowe, Olympi (R-ME)
Specter, Arlen (R-PA)
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI)
Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
Sununu, John (R-NH)
Talent, Jim (R-MO)
Thomas, Craig (R-WY)
Thune, John (R-SD)
Vitter, David (R-LA)
Voinovich, George (R-OH)
Warner, John (R-VA)
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Ae3muFLaOb
[Link Directly To This Entry]
This entry is not related to Iraq specifically, but
contains some very interesting information. In August 2002 Richard A.
Clarke, former chief counter-terrorism adviser, discusses US strategy
in dealing with islamic terrorists:
RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go
through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point
is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton
administration to the Bush administration.
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in
place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of
issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when
that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the
Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh,
changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the
incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy.
They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been
decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know,
in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the
existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings,
which we've now made public to some extent.
And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still
in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing
the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at
those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get
them decided.
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in
February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the
existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example,
for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies -- and you had to
remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early
April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation
details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and
sending out to the principals.
Over the course of the summer -- last point -- they developed
implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer,
approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by
authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on
Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on
the Northern Alliance assistance.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over
the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that
called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the
timeline.
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug 12,
2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was
unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton
administration because of animus against the -- general animus against
the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their
vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism
issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council
leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy
around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus
against, uh, the previous team to me.
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop
anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making
these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for
covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's correct.
ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying
is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no
delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were
made in the spring months just after the administration came into
office?
CLARKE: You got it. That's right.
Richard A. Clarke
Former chief counter-terrorism adviser
August, 2002
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Lem3epOAga
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html
[Link Directly To This Entry]
Note: As some of these comments above are embarrassing, some of the
specific web pages cited may mysteriously disappear. In some cases,
multiple links have been provided to bypass such disappearances.
Links to the above cited web pages were all working and verified at
the time of posting, and the original web pages and text have been
archived in their entirety for historical purposes. All dates and
citations provided are 100% accurate to facilitate further research.
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 15:01:52 -0700 (PDT),
>
And that is exactly what Bush said. Thanks for rubbing Eskies nose in
it.
Observer
Wow. How is that working out for us?
Observer
Hey Jerry. Wanna bust Gunner with the "He asked what Bush said..."
like you did to John R. Carroll?
Or do you wish to be viewed as a NeoClown shill?
Observer
Bob Brock
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
You do know that the US has supported terrorists in South America
don't you?
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Leave it to you to bring Venezuela into this.
Bob Brock
Leave it to you to be the one bringing Venezuela into to this and try
to accuse me of it. I was thinking more of Colombia, Argentina, and
El-Salvador.
Gunner
>>
>> You do know that the US has supported terrorists in South America
>> don't you?
Isnt the saying "one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter"?
Gunner
nick hull
Bob Brock <bbr...@i-americia.net> wrote:
> You do know that the US has supported terrorists in South America
> don't you?
The US NEVER supports terrorists, if Bush supports them they are called
patriots. They are only terrorists if they oppose Bush ;)
Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Kind of makes you wonder about folks making frequent trips in and out
of those areas. Training camps?
Bob Brock
Not when there are mass graves of people who were working towards
making a living wage. People who were killed by terrorists supported
and supplied by an American company whose interest was in keeping
supply constant and cheap.
If you want to call such people freedom fighters, it says a lot about
you. However, it doesn't say anything that most of us didn't already
know.
Bob Brock
Or CIA working out another drugs for arms deal.
Bob Brock
>In article <uih934df9r8u6i5ns...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Brock <bbr...@i-americia.net> wrote:
>
>> You do know that the US has supported terrorists in South America
>> don't you?
>
>The US NEVER supports terrorists, if Bush supports them they are called
>patriots. They are only terrorists if they oppose Bush ;)
Interestingly, it appears that the corporate executives consulted with
the Department of Homeland Security before actually executing the deal
to provide money and small arms to the group that took care of those
pesky employees. DHS didn't say it was OK. However, they didn't tell
them that it was illegal either. They just sat back and allowed it to
happen. Trouble didn't start until the government of Colombia found
the mass graves and started investigating.
Fortunately, Colombia is the Bush's biggest friend in South America
and hasn't raised too big a stink over it yet. They are trying to
extradite the executives who made the decision for trials in Colombia,
but they are meeting some resistance from the government that does so
much to prosecute terrorists.
taxationi...@lycos.com
bullet?
nick hull
<5739a6c3-d1bb-4366...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
taxationi...@lycos.com wrote:
> Will Africans in the US riot and start a race war if Obama catches a
> bullet?
Most likely he will catch a bullet from a black man that Hillary hired ;)
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 04:24:29 -0700 (PDT),
>
> >On May 22, 2:28 am, Gunner <gun...@NOSPAM.lightspeed.net> wrote:
> >> >> You do know that the US has supported terrorists in South America
> >> >> don't you?
>
> >> Isnt the saying "one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter"?
>
> >> Gunner
>
> >Kind of makes you wonder about folks making frequent trips in and out
> >of those areas. Training camps?
>
> Or CIA working out another drugs for arms deal.
You think he's CIA? Or a drug lord? Or an arms merchant?
John R. Carroll
the defensive - on the moral defensive, the intellectual defensive, and the
political and economic defensive. Freedom movements arise and assert
themselves. They're doing so on almost every continent populated by man - in
the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in Central America ...
[They are] freedom fighters."
Ronald Reagan.
Those "freedom fighters" in the Afghan hills were the mujahedeen faction run
by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, famous for throwing acid in the faces of women who
refused to wear the veil.
Curly Surmudgeon
> And he would bet your son and daughter that he is right....
>
> Wasn't this the Republican war that was supposed to be won in six months?
>
> Support the troops....bring them home NOW.
>
> TMT
>
>
> McCain believes Iraq war can be won by 2013 By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated
> Press Writer
>
>
>
> Republican John McCain declared for the first time Thursday he believes
> the Iraq war can be won by 2013, although he rejected suggestions that his
> talk of a timetable put him on the same side as Democrats clamoring for
> full-scale troop withdrawals.
>
> The Republican presidential contender, in a mystical speech that also
> envisioned Osama bin Laden dead or captured, and Americans with the choice
> of paying a simple flat tax or following their standard 1040 form, said
> only a small number of troops would remain in Iraq by the end of a
> prospective first term because al-Qaida will have been defeated and Iraq's
> government will be functioning on its own.
>
> "By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and
> women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her
> freedom. The Iraq War has been won," McCain told an audience of several
> hundred here in the capital city of a general election battleground state.
>
> Later, as the Arizona senator drove to the airport on his "Straight Talk
> Express" campaign bus, McCain was peppered by reporters with questions
> about the timetable. He and his aides insisted there was a difference
> between ending the war and bringing troops home and, as they criticize the
> Democrats, announcing a withdrawal upfront without regard for the military
> endgame.
>
> "It's not a timetable; it's victory. It's victory, which I have always
> predicted. I didn't know when we were going to win World War II; I just
> knew we were going to win," McCain said.
>
> The Vietnam veteran added: "I know from experience, you set a day for
> surrender — which is basically what you do when you say you are
> withdrawing — and you will pay a much a heavier price later on."
>
> In the primary campaign, McCain had criticized former Republican rival
> Mitt Romney for hinting at a timetable.
>
> Democrats challenged McCain's comments, led by presidential contender
> Hillary Rodham Clinton.
>
> In a statement, the New York senator dismissed McCain and said he
> "promises more of the same Bush policies that have weakened our military,
> our national security and our standing in the world." The Barack Obama
> campaign said that while the candidate agrees with some of McCain's
> sentiments, "you cannot embrace the destructive policies and divisive
> political tactics of George Bush and still offer yourself as a candidate
> of healing and change."
>
> Other Democrats equated McCain's comment with President Bush's May 1,
> 2003, speech on the deck of an aircraft carrier displaying a "Mission
> Accomplished" banner.
>
> In his remarks, McCain peered through a crystal ball to 2013 and
> envisioned an era of bipartisanship driven by weekly news conferences and
> British-style question periods with joint meetings of Congress.
>
> The senator conceded he cannot make the changes alone, but said he wanted
> to outline a specific governing style to show the accomplishments it can
> achieve. He backed up his remarks with a Web ad featuring similar content.
>
> "I'm not interested in partisanship that serves no other purpose than to
> gain a temporary advantage over our opponents. This mindless, paralyzing
> rancor must come to an end. We belong to different parties, not different
> countries," McCain said. "There is a time to campaign, and a time to
> govern. If I'm elected president, the era of the permanent campaign will
> end; the era of problem-solving will begin."
>
> To the disdain of some fellow Republicans, the likely GOP nominee has
> worked with Democrats on legislation aimed at overhauling campaign finance
> regulations, redrafting immigration rules and regulations and implementing
> government spending controls.
>
> While that has cultivated a maverick image for McCain, the Arizona senator
> has also been accused of exhibiting a nasty temper — swearing even at
> fellow lawmakers from his own party — and unabashed partisanship.
>
> In particular, McCain has clashed with the leading Democratic presidential
> contender, Barack Obama. After tangling with the Illinois senator on
> lobbying reforms, McCain questioned Obama's integrity in a publicly
> released 2006 letter.
>
> McCain wrote he had thought Obama's interest in ethics legislation "was
> genuine and admirable," before adding: "Thank you for disabusing me of
> such notions." He accused Obama of "partisan posturing."
>
> In outlining other potential achievements of a first term in his speech,
> the 71-year-old McCain implicitly was suggesting he would seek a second
> term, an attempt to mute suggestions he would serve only four years after
> being the oldest president elected.
>
> In particular, he sees a world in which the Taliban threat in Afghanistan
> has been greatly reduced.
>
> He added: "The increase in actionable intelligence that the
> counterinsurgency produced led to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden,
> and his chief lieutenants. ... There still has not been a major terrorist
> attack in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001."
>
> McCain also pledged to halt a Bush administration practice of enacting
> laws with accompanying signing statements that exempt the president from
> having to enforce parts he finds objectionable.
McCain believes in a Cosmic Muffin too...
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Republican, Suffering Builds Character
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
He who defines the terms wins the debate.
Republicans have been in the forefront of accusations for decades, lying
motherfuckers they are...
strabo
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:54:31 -0700, John R. Carroll wrote:
>
>> Gunner wrote:
>>>>> You do know that the US has supported terrorists in South America
>>>>> don't you?
>>>
>>> Isnt the saying "one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter"?
>>>
>> "Throughout the world ... its agents, client states and satellites are on
>> the defensive - on the moral defensive, the intellectual defensive, and
>> the political and economic defensive. Freedom movements arise and assert
>> themselves. They're doing so on almost every continent populated by man -
>> in the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in Central America
>> ... [They are] freedom fighters."
>>
>> Ronald Reagan.
>>
>>
>> Those "freedom fighters" in the Afghan hills were the mujahedeen faction
>> run by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, famous for throwing acid in the faces of women
>> who refused to wear the veil.
>
> He who defines the terms wins the debate.
>
> Republicans have been in the forefront of accusations for decades, lying
> motherfuckers they are...
>
Ronald Reagan left the Democratic Party because it had become blatantly
Communistic. So it is now with the Republican Party.
> -- Regards, Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Vote Republican, Suffering Builds Character
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Curly Surmudgeon
> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:54:31 -0700, John R. Carroll wrote:
>>
>>> Gunner wrote:
>>>>>> You do know that the US has supported terrorists in South America
>>>>>> don't you?
>>>>
>>>> Isnt the saying "one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter"?
>>>>
>>> "Throughout the world ... its agents, client states and satellites are
>>> on the defensive - on the moral defensive, the intellectual defensive,
>>> and the political and economic defensive. Freedom movements arise and
>>> assert themselves. They're doing so on almost every continent populated
>>> by man - in the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in
>>> Central America ... [They are] freedom fighters."
>>>
>>> Ronald Reagan.
>>>
>>>
>>> Those "freedom fighters" in the Afghan hills were the mujahedeen
>>> faction run by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, famous for throwing acid in the
>>> faces of women who refused to wear the veil.
>>
>> He who defines the terms wins the debate.
>>
>> Republicans have been in the forefront of accusations for decades, lying
>> motherfuckers they are...
>>
>>
> Ronald Reagan left the Democratic Party because it had become blatantly
> Communistic. So it is now with the Republican Party.
Replace "communistic" with "socialist" and I'd agree.
strabo
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 22:08:21 -0400, strabo wrote:
>
>> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:54:31 -0700, John R. Carroll wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gunner wrote:
>>>>>>> You do know that the US has supported terrorists in South America
>>>>>>> don't you?
>>>>> Isnt the saying "one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter"?
>>>>>
>>>> "Throughout the world ... its agents, client states and satellites are
>>>> on the defensive - on the moral defensive, the intellectual defensive,
>>>> and the political and economic defensive. Freedom movements arise and
>>>> assert themselves. They're doing so on almost every continent populated
>>>> by man - in the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in
>>>> Central America ... [They are] freedom fighters."
>>>>
>>>> Ronald Reagan.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Those "freedom fighters" in the Afghan hills were the mujahedeen
>>>> faction run by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, famous for throwing acid in the
>>>> faces of women who refused to wear the veil.
>>> He who defines the terms wins the debate.
>>>
>>> Republicans have been in the forefront of accusations for decades, lying
>>> motherfuckers they are...
>>>
>>>
>> Ronald Reagan left the Democratic Party because it had become blatantly
>> Communistic. So it is now with the Republican Party.
>
> Replace "communistic" with "socialist" and I'd agree.
>
'Communism' was the term at the time because that is what Stalinists
called themselves. Communism is the theoretical culmination of
Socialism. Stalin was an optimist.
Socialism is the formal process of dividing populations into state
sponsored collectives for the purpose of achieving group equity
at the expense of individual merit and responsibility.
>
> -- Regards, Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Vote Republican, Suffering Builds Character
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Gunner Asch
And?
Gunner
at yoyodyne they were all veterans of the psychic wars
exiled from the eighth dimension where the winds of limbo roar"
mariposa rand mair theal
rigger
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:49:05 -0700 (PDT), rigger <dg...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Let's see, 2013...2013...2013, oh I get it. So the little
> >fake is elected in 2008 then add 4 years = 2012. I
> >guess this means he'd have to be elected for a second
> >term for his plan to be successful?
>
> >McCain is such a disingenuous asshole; typical politician.
>
> It means he has an out in the 2012 election when people ask why the
> war is still going.
> >McCain is such a disingenuous asshole; typical politician.
>
> It means he has an out in the 2012 election when people ask why
the
> war is still going.
...............YES
.........and we MUST elect him for his plan to have fruit.
Worked for bush so he figures it should work for him,
as well. What an ass. Can't even come up with an
original lie of his own so he has to plagerize from one
of the biggest assholes in the world. The sad thing is
about 1/2 of the voting public has already forgotten
about bush's lies; makes you want to puke.
dennis
in nca
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:54:31 -0700, John R. Carroll wrote:
> > Gunner wrote:
> >>>> You do know that the US has supported terrorists in South America
> >>>> don't you?
>
> >> Isnt the saying "one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter"?
>
> > "Throughout the world ... its agents, client states and satellites are on
> > the defensive - on the moral defensive, the intellectual defensive, and
> > the political and economic defensive. Freedom movements arise and assert
> > themselves. They're doing so on almost every continent populated by man -
> > in the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in Central America
> > ... [They are] freedom fighters."
>
> > Ronald Reagan.
>
> > Those "freedom fighters" in the Afghan hills were the mujahedeen faction
> > run by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, famous for throwing acid in the faces of women
> > who refused to wear the veil.
>
> He who defines the terms wins the debate.
>
> Republicans have been in the forefront of accusations for decades, lying
> motherfuckers they are...
>
> -- Regards, Curly
Squirelly, do you actually eat with that dirty mouth? And in how
many countries do you vote? I meant legally vote?
RONSERESURPLUS
>
> Hot
You have to understand that 'Curley" beig one of the "Three stooges"
really can't help being a DEM-O-RAT Supported and DNC Mouthpiece! LOL
RON L
Bob Brock
Do you actually try to think with that pea brain? No one except you
cares how many countries he can legally vote in. Gummer claims to
able to vote three times per election in this one.
Bob Brock
<RONSERE...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 27, 7:00?pm, hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On May 26, 9:33?pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon_...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:54:31 -0700, John R. Carroll wrote:
>> > > Gunner wrote:
>> > >>>> You do know that the US has supported terrorists in South America
>> > >>>> don't you?
>>
>> > >> Isnt the saying "one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter"?
>>
>> > > "Throughout the world ... its agents, client states and satellites are on
>> > > the defensive - on the moral defensive, the intellectual defensive, and
>> > > the political and economic defensive. Freedom movements arise and assert
>> > > themselves. They're doing so on almost every continent populated by man -
>> > > in the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in Central America
>> > > ... [They are] freedom fighters."
>>
>> > > Ronald Reagan.
>>
>> > > Those "freedom fighters" in the Afghan hills were the mujahedeen faction
>> > > run by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, famous for throwing acid in the faces of women
>> > > who refused to wear the veil.
>>
>> > He who defines the terms wins the debate.
>>
>> > Republicans have been in the forefront of accusations for decades, lying
>> > motherfuckers they are...
>>
>> > -- Regards, Curly
>>
>> Squirelly, do you actually eat with that dirty mouth? ? And in how
>> many countries do you vote? ?I meant legally vote?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> Hot
>
>
> You have to understand that 'Curley" beig one of the "Three stooges"
>really can't help being a DEM-O-RAT Supported and DNC Mouthpiece! LOL
Oh look. Another little pointy head pops up. One who wanted us to
think that he was stationed off the coast of Afghanistan.
Observer
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
Gee, Cheese-Bob, you've used "Crazymotherfucker" more often than Curly
has. Hell, you accused me of being a pottie-mouth for using "AssHat"
__
"I don't know any straight-talking Republicans, do you?
I can't get a straight answer out of any Republicans.
I Don't know what they're talking about" - Bill O'Reilly
Observer
<RONSERE...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 27, 7:00?pm, hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On May 26, 9:33?pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon_...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:54:31 -0700, John R. Carroll wrote:
>> > > Gunner wrote:
>> > >>>> You do know that the US has supported terrorists in South America
>> > >>>> don't you?
>>
>> > >> Isnt the saying "one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter"?
>>
>> > > "Throughout the world ... its agents, client states and satellites are on
>> > > the defensive - on the moral defensive, the intellectual defensive, and
>> > > the political and economic defensive. Freedom movements arise and assert
>> > > themselves. They're doing so on almost every continent populated by man -
>> > > in the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in Central America
>> > > ... [They are] freedom fighters."
>>
>> > > Ronald Reagan.
>>
>> > > Those "freedom fighters" in the Afghan hills were the mujahedeen faction
>> > > run by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, famous for throwing acid in the faces of women
>> > > who refused to wear the veil.
>>
>> > He who defines the terms wins the debate.
>>
>> > Republicans have been in the forefront of accusations for decades, lying
>> > motherfuckers they are...
>>
>> > -- Regards, Curly
>>
>> Squirelly, do you actually eat with that dirty mouth? ? And in how
>> many countries do you vote? ?I meant legally vote?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> Hot
>
>
> You have to understand that 'Curley" beig one of the "Three stooges"
>really can't help being a DEM-O-RAT Supported and DNC Mouthpiece! LOL
>
>
>
>
>
> RON L
LOL. Yup Hyup, pretty funny. Dork, dork dork.
Curly Surmudgeon
Have you noticed the correlation between Bushbots and illiteracy?
Curly Surmudgeon
It's all the Bushbots have, attacking opposing concepts and ideas.
Oh, and lies. They (bushbots) have lots of lies. In fact their cup of
lies runneth over!
Curly Surmudgeon
> On May 27, 7:00pm, hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On May 26, 9:33pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon_...@hotmail.com>
You'd do well to shut up and not let your stupidity outshine your
ignorance and illiteracy. The world is not "Republican" or "Democrat"
there are a plethora (look that one up in your dictionary) of choices. In
fact an infinite range of options.
That single posting demonstrates just how incredibly stupid you are.
You were in a boat off the coast of Afghanistan? When was this, in
neolithic times?
Curly Surmudgeon
Be kind to the terminally stupid. Bushbot heads will explode if they
accept the disaster they've created. They cannot comprehend the tragic
catastrophe of the Bush administration without involuntarily committing
suicide.
Hmmm, on second thought, maybe they need convincing...
Curly Surmudgeon
I'm aware of that. _All_ involuntary socialistic communities, societies,
and nations have failed. Or are failing. Don't limit your scorn to
"Communists" but to the grander term, "Socialists" which the USA has
become too.
Yet another mechanism at work destroying our nation.
Observer
wrote:
>Will women in the US riot and start a gender war if Hillary catches
>some sniper fire?
What will the NeoTards do if the same ill fate visits McCain?
--
The last official act of any government is the looting of the nation.
Bob Brock
Can you imagine what's going to happen to them after the election? It
won't be a pretty sight.
Bob Brock
wrote:
>On Sun, 25 May 2008 17:31:29 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 May 2008 07:23:37 -0700 (PDT),
>>taxationi...@lycos.com wrote:
>>
>>>Will Africans in the US riot and start a race war if Obama catches a
>>>bullet?
>>
>>Will women in the US riot and start a gender war if Hillary catches
>>some sniper fire?
>
>What will the NeoTards do if the same ill fate visits McCain?
I don't think that one has to worry about the neo-cons actually
putting their ass on the line. However, they are quite adept at
putting someone else's ass out there.
Jeff McCann
I think there will be a lot of pissed off black Americans, along with
many others, if Clinton somehow manages to pull off the Democratic
nomination, though.
It would also be mighty "interesting" if Clinton becomes VP and
President Obama were to be assassinated. That could also happen before
the general election, as well.
Lots of rational, non-conspiracy minded folks worry that Obama will be
assassinated if elected. That fear caused Gen. Powell's wife to ask him
not to run, IIRC. I worry that all the Rightard smears about Obama
being a Muslim, etc., as well as plain old-fashioned racism, will lead
some ignorant nutter to give it a try.
Jeff
Bob Brock
wrote:
I'm afraid that you could just be right about Obama. If that happens,
I think that it will be worse than when King was killed and not a very
good day for America in general.
Jeff McCann
I agree.
Jeff
strabo
"plain old-fashioned racism"? That's just code to intimidate and shut
off criticism. People hold beliefs or do things for reasons. In this
case it is demonstrable that Blacks generally carry a lot of emotional
baggage which when combined with legitimate power, spells trouble for
the US. Perhaps half of all medium to large cities are politically
controlled by Black machines. This was one reason for the growth of
suburbia. As long as Americans, black and white, have been able to move
away from the vindictive and socialistic actions of these few, it has
been seen as tolerable.
On the other hand, an Obama presidency would generate the backlash
necessary to move the federal capital to a cornfield in Nebraska...
hmmm...
Jeff McCann
Hogwash. Racism is alive and well in America. Indeed, it seems to be a
pretty common trait throughout humanity, regardless of race, etc.,
showing, in a sad way, that we are all pretty much alike.
Do you really think there aren't people in America who won't vote for a
person if he's black, or half-black, or whatever, regardless of any
other circumstances? Do you also think that there are no racists who
might be tempted to try to kill the first (or second, or third) "black"
President because of his race alone?
This is more restating the obvious than an attempt to "intimidate and
shut off criticism."
> People hold beliefs or do things for reasons.
Yeah, like "plain old-fashioned racism."
> In this
> case it is demonstrable that Blacks generally carry a lot of emotional
> baggage which when combined with legitimate power, spells trouble for
> the US.
OK, then demonstrate it, by all means.
> Perhaps half of all medium to large cities are politically
> controlled by Black machines. This was one reason for the growth of
> suburbia. As long as Americans, black and white, have been able to move
> away from the vindictive and socialistic actions of these few, it has
> been seen as tolerable.
Incompetence, avarice and criminality seem not to be confined to
black-run political machines. The Late Mayor Daley of Chicago leaps to
mind . . .
White flight as a social phenomena predated the rise of black
politicians in municipal governments. You've put the cart before the horse.
> On the other hand, an Obama presidency would generate the backlash
> necessary to move the federal capital to a cornfield in Nebraska...
> hmmm...
Which would accomplish what, exactly?
Jeff
strabo
Well, if it happens don't assume that it was the "racists". Obama is the
perfect foil. That's why he was fast-tracked and put into the Illinois
and federal senate to begin with. He has no roots in American tradition
or culture, only ties to radical racial and religious elements PLUS an
affinity for "change" and global politics. His experience has been
described as "exotic". Obama is the Democratic Socialist counterpart to
the Republican Socialist's Neocons and is the perfect change agent. The
only question is how he will be used to effect change. Get the picture?
Now, many Americans are 100% for globalism and would enjoy seeing
the US become subservient to some global union. Nothing would please
them more than to see the borders removed and the white power
structure overrun by non-whites. That this is suicide does not occur
to those who relish the belief that Bush is a conservative as they ride
their Left-Right paradigm into oblivion.
Inside assassination plots worked in the cases of King and Kennedy,
and a national assassination, the 9/11 scam, has greatly benefited the
military/industrial/banking complex.
Yes, he may be assassinated but I argue that this would be by
design, a ritual sacrifice by humanists.
Jeff McCann
I am not prone to such assumptions. A President may be assassinated for
any number of reasons, though a "lone racist" would be the likely blamee
if Obama were to be assassinated in office.
> Obama is the
> perfect foil. That's why he was fast-tracked and put into the Illinois
> and federal senate to begin with.
Still waiting for any credible evidence of this "hidden hand" conspiracy
of yours. AFAIK, Obama won his state and federal offices in an ordinary
political campaign. So far, you've produced nothing of the sort.
> He has no roots in American tradition
> or culture, only ties to radical racial and religious elements PLUS an
> affinity for "change" and global politics.
Dismissed as counter-factual in a previous thread.
> His experience has been
> described as "exotic". Obama is the Democratic Socialist counterpart to
> the Republican Socialist's Neocons and is the perfect change agent. The
> only question is how he will be used to effect change. Get the picture?
Obama appears to be much more independent of sub rosa influences and
much more of a natural leader than Bush is. Of the three leading
presidential contenders, I'd say he's the least subject to outside
influence and special interest control or manipulation. But being
largely his own man makes him unpredictable, a bit of a gamble for the
electorate, and a serious threat to entrenched interests.
Jeff
nick hull
Jeff McCann <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote:
> Lots of rational, non-conspiracy minded folks worry that Obama will be
> assassinated if elected. That fear caused Gen. Powell's wife to ask him
> not to run, IIRC. I worry that all the Rightard smears about Obama
> being a Muslim, etc., as well as plain old-fashioned racism, will lead
> some ignorant nutter to give it a try.
Not some ignorant nutter, but an intelligent assassin in the pay of
someone who will profit. Intelligent enough to set up an ignorant
nutter as the fall guy ;)
Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Sue
wrote:
>On Sat, 24 May 2008 07:23:37 -0700 (PDT),
>taxationi...@lycos.com wrote:
>
>>Will Africans in the US riot and start a race war if Obama catches a
>>bullet?
>
>Will women in the US riot and start a gender war if Hillary catches
>some sniper fire?
Just for the record, I won't.
Sue
Jeff McCann
> In article <jyq%j.83075$%15.5...@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> Jeff McCann <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote:
>
>> Lots of rational, non-conspiracy minded folks worry that Obama will be
>> assassinated if elected. That fear caused Gen. Powell's wife to ask him
>> not to run, IIRC. I worry that all the Rightard smears about Obama
>> being a Muslim, etc., as well as plain old-fashioned racism, will lead
>> some ignorant nutter to give it a try.
>
> Not some ignorant nutter, but an intelligent assassin in the pay of
> someone who will profit. Intelligent enough to set up an ignorant
> nutter as the fall guy ;)
Sounds likely to me, if such a tragic event should occur. In fact, I
made the same point down-thread.
Jeff
Curly Surmudgeon
Ha! Lamentably true.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Torture is not American, It's Republican
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Sturgeon
<not_...@bogus.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 May 2008 07:23:37 -0700 (PDT),
>taxationi...@lycos.com wrote:
>
>>Will Africans in the US riot and start a race war if Obama catches a
>>bullet?
>
>Will women in the US riot and start a gender war if Hillary catches
>some sniper fire?
The gender war was never about actual violence by women. It
was fought in the courts, legislatures, schools, and homes.
By and large, the women who were the most militant "won."
I remember reading a quote from an older woman who said to
her militant daughter, "You'll turn the men into weaklings,
and then you won't want them." She skipped the other half
-- they won't want you, either.
Welcome to the metrosexual world.
As for whether blacks will riot if Obama (an acquaintance
calls him "Bahama") gets killed -- you bet your ass they
will. An all-out race war? I don't think so. But some
good old-fashioned race riots? Count on it.
Fortunately, often they'll be in the dying urban cores of
obsolete cities like Detroit and Cleveland. Other urban
cores which will suffer death and destruction will convince
the suburbanites themselves to abandon the welfare policies
which allow these concentrations of idle populations that
are so likely to be dominated by drugs and gangs. If we do
see some race wars, they'll be in places like urban L.A.,
and they'll be between black gangs and Hispanic gangs.
Or not... Anyway, it'll be quite a TV show.
--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
taxationi...@lycos.com
> On Sun, 25 May 2008 17:31:29 -0700, Winston_Smith
>
Good post, but I think riots will just make whites want to give even
more money in tribute to blacks. This is what happened after the 1992
riots.
I'm hoping for a cleansing fire.
strabo
> In article <jyq%j.83075$%15.5...@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> Jeff McCann <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote:
>
>> Lots of rational, non-conspiracy minded folks worry that Obama will be
>> assassinated if elected. That fear caused Gen. Powell's wife to ask him
>> not to run, IIRC. I worry that all the Rightard smears about Obama
>> being a Muslim, etc., as well as plain old-fashioned racism, will lead
>> some ignorant nutter to give it a try.
>
> Not some ignorant nutter, but an intelligent assassin in the pay of
> someone who will profit. Intelligent enough to set up an ignorant
> nutter as the fall guy ;)
>
That's SOP.
Lee Harvey Oswald
James Earl Ray
Sirhan Sirhan
> Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
strabo
> On Sun, 25 May 2008 17:31:29 -0700, Winston_Smith
> <not_...@bogus.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 07:23:37 -0700 (PDT),
>> taxationi...@lycos.com wrote:
>>
>>> Will Africans in the US riot and start a race war if Obama catches a
>>> bullet?
>> Will women in the US riot and start a gender war if Hillary catches
>> some sniper fire?
>
> The gender war was never about actual violence by women. It
> was fought in the courts, legislatures, schools, and homes.
> By and large, the women who were the most militant "won."
>
> I remember reading a quote from an older woman who said to
> her militant daughter, "You'll turn the men into weaklings,
> and then you won't want them." She skipped the other half
> -- they won't want you, either.
>
Gloria Steinem - CIA.
>
> Welcome to the metrosexual world.
>
> As for whether blacks will riot if Obama (an acquaintance
> calls him "Bahama") gets killed -- you bet your ass they
> will. An all-out race war? I don't think so. But some
> good old-fashioned race riots? Count on it.
>
> Fortunately, often they'll be in the dying urban cores of
> obsolete cities like Detroit and Cleveland. Other urban
> cores which will suffer death and destruction will convince
> the suburbanites themselves to abandon the welfare policies
> which allow these concentrations of idle populations that
> are so likely to be dominated by drugs and gangs. If we do
> see some race wars, they'll be in places like urban L.A.,
> and they'll be between black gangs and Hispanic gangs.
>
> Or not... Anyway, it'll be quite a TV show.
>
Barack Obama - CIA?
> --
> Robert Sturgeon
> Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
> http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
strabo
It is common today to see twenty to sixty year old women living alone.
This is seldom their choice.
Liberals are getting old and scared. They now realize that every
social movement not only failed to accomplish stated goals but had
adverse effects, in many cases, effects that they must now live with.
strabo
The guiding hand is hardly hidden.
These days conspiracies are openly flaunted. Just check John Warner's
(Virginia) record over the past 10 years. He calls himself a
conservative and Republican but his support of the Neocons is
antithetical to the Constitution.
I don't intend to make an issue of Obama though I will interject where
appropriate. He, like many others, should not even be in Congress
let alone running for the presidency. The facts concerning his
connections and activities are easily found.
>
>> He has no roots in American tradition
>> or culture, only ties to radical racial and religious elements PLUS an
>> affinity for "change" and global politics.
>
> Dismissed as counter-factual in a previous thread.
>
There's nothing to dismiss.
If one was not born and raised in 'flyover' country and enculturated as
most Americans, one cannot have an affinity for America.
George Bush for example was born and raised in a cocoon and has no such
affinity and should not have been nominated.
>
>> His experience has been
>> described as "exotic". Obama is the Democratic Socialist counterpart to
>> the Republican Socialist's Neocons and is the perfect change agent. The
>> only question is how he will be used to effect change. Get the picture?
>
> Obama appears to be much more independent of sub rosa influences and
> much more of a natural leader than Bush is. Of the three leading
> presidential contenders, I'd say he's the least subject to outside
> influence and special interest control or manipulation. But being
> largely his own man makes him unpredictable, a bit of a gamble for the
> electorate, and a serious threat to entrenched interests.
>
1. One doesn't get nominated to office in Illinois unless the fix is in.
Once nominated the rest of the Machine goes to work.
Of course you can argue that this doesn't matter.
Obama's competition for the Democratic Party candidacy was Rahm
Emanuel, another example of a globalist and rigged elections, but
Emanuel is too transparently Mossad.
2. Natural leader? I've not found that Obama has any ability to act or
think independently. On the contrary he has done what he has been
told since birth.
The Communist Party likes him.
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/907/1/4/
I know you are more "centrist" than I and I believe you are
not a Marxist. But you seem to be attracted by socialistic
party favors dangled by deceivers. I think you should be more
critical of those who want to 'lead' you.
>
> Jeff
Jeff McCann
Sure. That's kinda what we all do. ;-)
> He, like many others, should not even be in Congress
> let alone running for the presidency. The facts concerning his
> connections and activities are easily found.
Then you should have no trouble laying a proper factual foundation for
your claim, right?
>>> He has no roots in American tradition
>>> or culture, only ties to radical racial and religious elements PLUS an
>>> affinity for "change" and global politics.
>>
>> Dismissed as counter-factual in a previous thread.
>>
>
> There's nothing to dismiss.
>
> If one was not born and raised in 'flyover' country and enculturated as
> most Americans, one cannot have an affinity for America.
I resent that. I was born and raised in California and have spent most
of my adult life in Florida, generally considered as not "flyover
country." I think I see what you are aiming at, but I'd hate to
disqualify tens of millions of Americans from the coasts. You are being
waaay over-broad here.
> George Bush for example was born and raised in a cocoon and has no such
> affinity and should not have been nominated.
Many of our Founding Fathers grew up in wealth and privilege, as did TR
and FDR, for example. Teddy Roosevelt's heart and deeds in office
clearly displayed a sincere interest in the middle and working classes,
as did FDR, albeit by different means and philosophies. But Nixon,
Carter and Clinton, for three recent examples, grew up lower middle
class in "flyover country."
>>> His experience has been
>>> described as "exotic". Obama is the Democratic Socialist counterpart to
>>> the Republican Socialist's Neocons and is the perfect change agent. The
>>> only question is how he will be used to effect change. Get the picture?
>>
>> Obama appears to be much more independent of sub rosa influences and
>> much more of a natural leader than Bush is. Of the three leading
>> presidential contenders, I'd say he's the least subject to outside
>> influence and special interest control or manipulation. But being
>> largely his own man makes him unpredictable, a bit of a gamble for the
>> electorate, and a serious threat to entrenched interests.
>>
>
> 1. One doesn't get nominated to office in Illinois unless the fix is in.
> Once nominated the rest of the Machine goes to work.
>
> Of course you can argue that this doesn't matter.
>
> Obama's competition for the Democratic Party candidacy was Rahm
> Emanuel, another example of a globalist and rigged elections, but
> Emanuel is too transparently Mossad.
>
>
> 2. Natural leader? I've not found that Obama has any ability to act or
> think independently. On the contrary he has done what he has been
> told since birth.
Evidence?
> The Communist Party likes him.
American Nazis tend to vote Republican. So what?
And Osama bin Forgotten helped Bush get re-elected.
Jeff
strabo
> strabo wrote:
>> Jeff McCann wrote:
<snipped>
>>>> He has no roots in American tradition
>>>> or culture, only ties to radical racial and religious elements PLUS an
>>>> affinity for "change" and global politics.
>>>
>>> Dismissed as counter-factual in a previous thread.
>>>
>>
>> There's nothing to dismiss.
>>
>> If one was not born and raised in 'flyover' country and enculturated as
>> most Americans, one cannot have an affinity for America.
>
> I resent that. I was born and raised in California and have spent most
> of my adult life in Florida, generally considered as not "flyover
> country." I think I see what you are aiming at, but I'd hate to
> disqualify tens of millions of Americans from the coasts. You are being
> waaay over-broad here.
>
I overstate for effect and brevity.
But you're in the running. 'Flyover' refers to any place outside the
Northeastern Commontern and LA.
>
>> George Bush for example was born and raised in a cocoon and has no such
>> affinity and should not have been nominated.
>
> Many of our Founding Fathers grew up in wealth and privilege, as did TR
> and FDR, for example. Teddy Roosevelt's heart and deeds in office
> clearly displayed a sincere interest in the middle and working classes,
> as did FDR, albeit by different means and philosophies. But Nixon,
> Carter and Clinton, for three recent examples, grew up lower middle
> class in "flyover country."
>
Avoiding the establishment of an aristocracy was a goal of the FF.
As Jefferson and others predicted, the worst has happened.
No guarantees but by bypassing the fixers and fixees we benefit. This
presupposes that there were other ways to have accomplished the good of
a Teddy Roosevelt.
A way to avoid elitism in government is one term limitations but
the primary mechanism to ensure a return to sanity is a grassroots
rejection of government operatives and policies - a thorough
housecleaning.
>
>>>> His experience has been
>>>> described as "exotic". Obama is the Democratic Socialist counterpart to
>>>> the Republican Socialist's Neocons and is the perfect change agent. The
>>>> only question is how he will be used to effect change. Get the picture?
>>>
>>> Obama appears to be much more independent of sub rosa influences and
>>> much more of a natural leader than Bush is. Of the three leading
>>> presidential contenders, I'd say he's the least subject to outside
>>> influence and special interest control or manipulation. But being
>>> largely his own man makes him unpredictable, a bit of a gamble for
>>> the electorate, and a serious threat to entrenched interests.
>>>
>>
>> 1. One doesn't get nominated to office in Illinois unless the fix is in.
>> Once nominated the rest of the Machine goes to work.
>>
>> Of course you can argue that this doesn't matter.
>>
>> Obama's competition for the Democratic Party candidacy was Rahm
>> Emanuel, another example of a globalist and rigged elections, but
>> Emanuel is too transparently Mossad.
>>
>>
>> 2. Natural leader? I've not found that Obama has any ability to act or
>> think independently. On the contrary he has done what he has been
>> told since birth.
>
> Evidence?
>
The evidence is in the facts. He has not deviated from his prepared
path.
>
>> The Communist Party likes him.
>
> American Nazis tend to vote Republican. So what?
>
> And Osama bin Forgotten helped Bush get re-elected.
>
Enough said.