Sep 22, 2003 6:49 AM
|"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of Mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Senator Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has sys
|Logic, reason, facts, consistency...||DougSloan|
Sep 22, 2003 6:58 AM
|have nothing to do with Liberal/Democratic attacks on Bush, Republicans, and Conservatives. While presented with those quotes many times, they simply ignore them or shift the discussion to some trivial issue that they can argue about.
Heck, Bush could have made a case to attack Iraq based upon nothing more than what Democrats had said. Maybe he should have...
|Still doesn't excuse Bush's record||ColnagoFE|
Sep 22, 2003 8:15 AM
|How long are we going to be in Iraq? We seem to be just floundering around there now without a real exit strategy--all the while people are killed daily. Meanwhile the economy is in the toilet. Bush's record speaks for itself.|
|What about FDR/Truman?||DougSloan|
Sep 22, 2003 8:37 AM
|Did FDR or Truman need to justify exit strategies when entering WWII for Japan or Germany? How much did we spend there? What was the economy then? How long did we occupy/control those countries?
Nonetheless, I think nearly everyone would like us to get out asap and minimize risk to our people there.
|Yeah...I think most of us agree on your last statement (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Sep 22, 2003 8:59 AM
|The situations are not parallel||Jon Billheimer|
Sep 22, 2003 9:05 AM
|Neither the scope nor the imminent threat and seriousness of the Iraq situation bear any parallel at all to WWI & II. So that's pretty much of a straw man that you raise.
The problem with Iraq is the flawed assumptions going in, that a victory would be easily obtained, that the inevitable discovery of WMDs would bring the rest of the world around quickly to the U.S. position, and that the U.S. would be welcomed and adored by a grateful Iraqi people. None of which have panned out.
|The situations are not parallel||bic|
Sep 22, 2003 10:52 AM
|no they are not. but who said it was going to be easy. this is not a police action as we have so often done in the past. it is a war that will be fought for years and my truly never come to an end.|
|not a good comparison||mohair_chair|
Sep 22, 2003 9:09 AM
|First of all, the obvious difference is that America was attacked and dragged into war with Japan and Germany overnight. In Iraq, we spent months shipping troops and equipment over to the Gulf. Perhaps someone should have considered the future at that time.
Second, throughout WWII, there were meetings in places like Quebec, Cairo, Tehran, and Postdam where the Allies figured out what would happen after the war. They had a very good idea of what the exit strategy would be. The beginning of the cold war caused some chaos and rethinking of a few things, but generally, the effort and time frame for fixing things and getting out was known before the war ended.
|Apples and Oranges||53T|
Sep 22, 2003 10:08 AM
|I'm refering to the overwhelming temptation to compare current events to historical accounts. This is what we do when we compare the eve of GW 2 to the eve of WWII. None of us were there at the eve of WWII. The likelyhood of our history books capturing the salient facts, much less the mindset of the American people during those days is near zero. Remember, a large portion of our history is either written by journalists, or based on journalist's accounts.
In the months preceeding the US entry into WWII there was much passionate and often unbecoming debate over the role of the US as international police, the believability of the threat posed by the axis, etc. After the attack the accusations that the Pacific Fleet was purposly concentrated at Pearl to provoke an attack were hurled at the administration. Endless moaning about how the people were misled could be heard for miles.
Nothing is as clear cut as it appears in a history books, even the great defining moments of our nation.
I am still amazed at the breast beating that goes on about WMD in Iraq. Any claims about WMD were made long after Congress authorized action, and long after the UN condemned SH's actions in Iraq. There were no votes or offical actions of Congress that were influenced by claims of WMD. It's almost as if the TV news wants to sue the President for making them report things that may not be true. I say, screw 'em. As for the rest of us, what difference would it have made if the administration never said a word about WMD? They would have taken the same actions, on the same schedule, with the same results.
|Truman have an exit strategy for Korea? we still...||ClydeTri|
Sep 22, 2003 10:59 AM
|have over 30,000 troops there 50 years later!|
|but fdr had a 700+ page report||rufus|
Sep 22, 2003 1:01 PM
|detailing his plans, objectives,and strategies for rebuilding europe after wwII. where's bush's plan, a couple lines scribbled on a napkin somewhere?|
|The Third Reich/Japan threat equals the Iraqi threat in your mind? wow||128|
Sep 23, 2003 4:57 AM
|They are so wildy incongruous and abviously different on the facts (we played defense there, preventive here, months to plan in Iraq but went in with haste, we were attacked then making ad hoc decisions necessary, military industrial of J and G was clear and immense, I never even saw an Iraqi Army) that using one to validate the other is, in my mind, preposterous.
Maybe I'm missing the usefulness of this comparison. I do see the comparison of Hussein to other despots though, and cleaning his little party was not wrong, just gone about wrongly.
Now, as for the remaining "evil" in the world. What's the plan?
|Hey! we are still in Kosov! CLinton said 6 months!||ClydeTri|
Sep 22, 2003 9:39 AM
|Clinton said six months we went into Kosov...we are still there..where is his exit strategy?|
|Hey! we are still in Kosov! CLinton said 6 months!||Jon Billheimer|
Sep 22, 2003 9:51 AM
|He probably didn't have one. Which doesn't justify Rummy's and Wolfie's gargantuan blunder.|
Sep 22, 2003 6:18 PM
|Two nights ago we had our squadron's 25th anniversary celebration, which was somber due to the fact that we have people/friends/family still "over there." Still, it was a good occassion to enjoy the company of friends.
What made it really special, however, was that our entertainment was provided by the Royal Canadian 15th Field Artillery Regiment's Band. What a terrific bunch of women and men--many of whom are soon to deploy to Afghanistan. They put on a spectacular show, and their band leader's words "ab't" the meaning of friendship in spite of stupid political disagreements drew a standing ovation from my group of Navy pilots.
...My hats off to you and yours. Now, take off, you hoser.
|Thanks for the kudos.||Jon Billheimer|
Sep 22, 2003 7:54 PM
|I agree with you. I think the attitude and the professionalism of the Cdn. Armed Forces is outstanding, even though they're horribly underfunded and overextended--probably the best peacekeeping forces in the world.
And yes, the friendship is genuine in spite of the likes of Chretien and Bush. BTW, we get rid of Chretien in a couple of months. Now go do YOUR duty, you Yanks:)-
|maybe this is why.||rufus|
Sep 23, 2003 7:07 AM
|It's all Clinton's fault..............||MR_GRUMPY|
Sep 22, 2003 5:35 PM
|Bill was just talking politics when he was talking about Iraq. Every president does that.... The big problem, is that george believed him. Somebody should have told him, not to trust evil Bill.
The other Democrats were either just talking tough, or were trying to up military spending..... Again, george was dumb enough to believe it.