Hillary Floor Speech Iraq

1 view
Skip to first unread message

fogd...@zexxnet.com

unread,
Mar 27, 2004, 1:01:45 AM3/27/04
to

October 10, 2002

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq


"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq
from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect
such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the
country and abroad.

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 affects American security. "


The Bandit

unread,
Mar 27, 2004, 1:14:29 AM3/27/04
to
fogd...@zexxnet.com wrote:

awwwwwwwwwwww and democraps want us to believe Bush made all this up all
by himself <g>

The Pretzel

unread,
Mar 27, 2004, 5:38:23 AM3/27/04
to

"The Bandit" <no-r...@pissoff.com> wrote in message
news:8631861699b8daad...@news.teranews.com...

> fogd...@zexxnet.com wrote:
>
> awwwwwwwwwwww and democraps want us to believe Bush made all this up all
> by himself <g>
Hillary was fed LIES by the Shrubs. His "Office of special plans" that
include REAL international criminals like Chalabi "Heroes in Error" walking
the halls of the Pentagon and are paid $340,000 a MONTH by YOU and ME for
their BAD intel service.

Made suckers of you ALL. Unfortunately I'm dragged in this as well. Go wave
your flag like a good little monkey! It's the very LEAST you can do.

Thanks for BLOWING $160,000,000,000,000. Thanks for mutilating or out right
DESTROYING 4,000 American lives. Thanks for Killing 40,000 Iraqis.

Bravo! Hey! It wasn't a total loss! It served Shrub a great punchline! Ya
get it?

The Bandit

unread,
Mar 27, 2004, 5:37:19 AM3/27/04
to
"The Pretzel" <rold...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> "The Bandit" <no-r...@pissoff.com> wrote in message
> news:8631861699b8daad...@news.teranews.com...
>> fogd...@zexxnet.com wrote:
>>
>> awwwwwwwwwwww and democraps want us to believe Bush made all this up
>> all by himself <g>
> Hillary was fed LIES by the Shrubs. His "Office of special plans"
> that include REAL international criminals like Chalabi "Heroes in
> Error" walking the halls of the Pentagon and are paid $340,000 a
> MONTH by YOU and ME for their BAD intel service.
>
> Made suckers of you ALL. Unfortunately I'm dragged in this as well.
> Go wave your flag like a good little monkey! It's the very LEAST you
> can do.
>
> Thanks for BLOWING $160,000,000,000,000. Thanks for mutilating or out
> right DESTROYING 4,000 American lives. Thanks for Killing 40,000
> Iraqis.
>
> Bravo! Hey! It wasn't a total loss! It served Shrub a great
> punchline! Ya get it?
>

hmmmmmm this isn't the tune Hillary is singing:

Hillary Clinton said "Saddam's expulsion of weapons inspectors and 'the
behavior' of his regime 'pointed to a continuing effort' to produce WMD,
she added. The senator said she did her own 'due diligence' by attending
classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon
and also by consulting national security officials from the Clinton
administration whom she trusts. 'To a person, they all agreed with the
consensus of the intelligence' that Saddam had WMD.

--Weekly Standard, 9/24/03 --

Doesn't sound like old Hillary was relying on anything Bush was telling
her, yet she came to the same conclusion.


qwerty

unread,
Mar 27, 2004, 1:21:18 PM3/27/04
to

<fogd...@zexxnet.com> wrote in message
news:knffj1-...@fogdancer.mshome.net...

You lefted out the complete context now didn't you?

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html


"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,
though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible
events of September 11, 2001. "

"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 affects American security. "

"Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do
about it? How, when, and with whom? "

"Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can
muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not
produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a
positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a
secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move
the entire region toward democratic reform. "

"This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because
it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in
1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using
chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the
Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom. "

"However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not
depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a
million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his
aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we
created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his
being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak. "

"If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a
precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has
talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has
mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if
China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan? "

"So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot
be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option. "


The Pretzel

unread,
Mar 27, 2004, 3:59:51 PM3/27/04
to

"The Bandit" <no-r...@pissoff.com> wrote in message
news:2c8e280f3810f649...@news.teranews.com...

The WEAKLY Standard? They're a Rightarded rag. They're proven LIARS. Their
"case closed" article is a joke refuted even by the DOD. They want you to
believe Chalabi and the rest of the cons that made those claims. Suckers you
are. If you want to believe these guys PLEASE PAY these idiots the 340,000 d
ollars a MONTH for BOGUS intelligence. I don't want my tax dollars going to
these idiots. Pay them yourself. RAGS like the WEAKLY Standard uses their
garbage intel for stories like "Case Closed". Are they the "Heroes in Error"
Chalabi was talking about?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/19/wirq19.xml

If Hillary did believe it, too bad. So did all of you idiots. The only ones
who took a second look were Democrats and Independents. Rep. James McDermott
thought otherwise. He tried to save 4,000 American lives and keep another
150,000 American soldiers from risking their lives. What did you Rightards
do to this Navy veteran? Call him a TRAITOR. You are all a bunch of PIGS.

Do you have quotes from Hillary? Not PLANTED quotes taken out of context by
the Weakly Standard "reporters".

The Pretzel

unread,
Mar 27, 2004, 4:05:19 PM3/27/04
to
Thanks Querty.
"qwerty" <nos...@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:yCj9c.15320$Wa.1...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...

Thanks Querty.
I knew it was taken out of context. After all, We're talking about the
"Weakly Standard."

The Pretzel

unread,
Mar 27, 2004, 4:07:21 PM3/27/04
to
"He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al
Qaeda members,

though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible
events of September 11, 2001. "

That's a real quote.
Thanks to Qwerty..


The Bandit

unread,
Mar 27, 2004, 6:37:02 PM3/27/04
to
"The Pretzel" <rold...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Oh yeah? What have they lied about? I don't recall or find anywhere
Hillary refuting she said this.

qwerty

unread,
Mar 27, 2004, 8:59:41 PM3/27/04
to

"The Bandit" <no-r...@pissoff.com> wrote in message
news:77a075440584a1d0...@news.teranews.com...

They lied by ommission. Here's Hillary's complete words on the matter:


http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html


"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,


though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible
events of September 11, 2001. "

"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 affects American security. "

"Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do

The Bandit

unread,
Mar 27, 2004, 9:19:57 PM3/27/04
to
"qwerty" <nos...@all.noway.com> wrote:


omission???????????? What ommission whould had changed her determination
that that Saddam had WMD??????????????????????????

oh and I loved her statement "Now this much is undisputed," refering to
everying Bush has accused Saddam of.


The Pretzel

unread,
Mar 27, 2004, 11:49:31 PM3/27/04
to

"The Bandit" <no-r...@pissoff.com> wrote in message
news:79c072f142dc96c9...@news.teranews.com...

When it comes to "The WEAKly Standard" it all depends on what you mean by
the word " is". The stuff they leave out can tilt the direction or content
of the message. An obvious simple example for the Rightarded: "That movie
was the greatest waste of my time!" to "That movie was the greatest of my
time!" . Now the example was pretty simple-minded. It shows a quote from a
film critic and omits a simple word. Not exactly a LIE, just a
misrepresentation by typo. Alas, the rightarded WILL BURN neurons thinking
about what I just typed and try to apply it. The ShrubCo. is doing it now
with poor Mr. Clarke and the FUX press briefing.

Clarke is smart. He voted for McCain, so nobody can say he's a Dem. He'll
fight the lies. We have a champion to go against the lies given for war.
>


qwerty

unread,
Mar 28, 2004, 12:34:06 PM3/28/04
to

"The Bandit" <no-r...@pissoff.com> wrote in message
news:79c072f142dc96c9...@news.teranews.com...

By omission implying that she backed Bush's rush to war with Iraq, when in
fact it was just the oposite.

> oh and I loved her statement "Now this much is undisputed," refering to
> everying Bush has accused Saddam of.

LOL, AGAIN you clipped off the best part:

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages