Why the Democrats Said We SHOULD ATTACK IRAQ

from JoeUser Forums
Since liberals think something Cheney said back in '94 about Iraq still applies today, then let's apply that same logic to the democrats.


"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"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. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of 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. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002




3,168 views 10 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
And let's not forget....


SUMMARY:

(REVISED AS OF 10/05/98 -- Passed House, amended)

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.

Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President's criteria.

Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime.

 


Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
You simply must stop using the liberals own words against them  
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
one of us musta forgot who controlled the house and senate in 1998.

here's a clue: which party was in bed with the inc? you know, that group of dedicated iraqi patriots who worked so hard and chumped their good ol gop buddies so masterfully in furtherance of the ila of which they were the sole beneficiaries.

i'm kidding about the dedicated patriot part btw...since it's now obvious inc was an embarrasingly successful iranian fifth column.

need more?

"I cannot understand why President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act when he had absolutely no intention of implementing the provisions of that law."

those whiny words were uttered by one sam brownback on one of many occasions he and his buddy ahmed publicly hugged and bemoaned clinton's reluctance to enrich chalabi and his troupe of iranian puppets.

more?

how bout some prognostications from the good ol jesse 'the racist prophet' helms?

"This bill will begin the long-overdue process of ousting Saddam. It will not send in U.S. troops or commit American forces in any way. Rather, it harkens back to the successes of the Reagan doctrine, enlisting the very people who are suffering most under Saddam's yoke to fight the battle against him."

man, dat whiteman shonuff nailed it huh?

oh hell, i almost forgot where this bill originated. lil group of pointy headed intellectual elites who came together as the project for a new american century to author the very white paper on which ila was based.

if i were you, ila is one the last things i'd wanna recall out loud.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

one of us musta forgot who controlled the house and senate in 1998.

YOu argue that the president controls the money and now you argue that congress controls foreign policy?  perhaps it is just your hearts desire to excuse the inexcuseable?

Whatever lame excuse you are using, one thing is for sure.  You dont know much about them guvmint agents, or how it works.  Do you bubba?

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
YOu argue that the president controls the money and now you argue that congress controls foreign policy?


if you're able to support these ridiculous claims--by which i mean link or quote any instance of me having written anything even vaguely close to what you're claiming here--please produce it. if you're unable to do so, i'll accept a sincere apology.

fail to do either and you reveal yourself an outright liar.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
one of us musta forgot who controlled the house and senate in 1998.


i'll accept a sincere apology.


Dont have to look far to see you talking about the control of congress in a foreign policy debate. Care to spin that statement?

And are you really going to ask me to find out where you were labeling this Bush's recession (just a mere 2 years ago)?

I'll take your appology whenever you feel like crow is not to your liking.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dont have to look far to see you talking about the control of congress in a foreign policy debate


no further than this thread's reply #2 consisting solely of a quoted summary of this:

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998


a law sponsored & cosponsored in both the house and senate by republicans (reps gilman & cox; sens mcain & lott & helms). it was passed by a republican controlled house and senate.

that was the sole argument i made here.

you're either too stupid to realize your error, too dishonest to admit it or, perhaps, both.

are you really going to ask me to find out where you were labeling this Bush's recession (just a mere 2 years ago)?


i've never labeled the 2001-2007 economy a recession.

so yeah...either prove your claim or apologize.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
you're either too stupid to realize your error, too dishonest to admit it or, perhaps, both.


What you meant to say, is not what you said. So I think those 3 fingers are pointing squarely at you. I did not selectively quote you, I literallyquoted you. Perhaps you would like to weasel and spin your way out of it, but the problem with the printed word is that it leaves a trail.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I literallyquoted you


here are the only words of mine you quoted in your reply #4:

one of us musta forgot who controlled the house and senate in 1998


i've no idea what sorta delusional and/or dyslexic syndromes so severely impair your ability to process information as to precipitate your typical non-responsive, wildly innapropriate and non-sequitur plagued comments, so i've no idea what compelled you to make the following ridiculous claims:

YOu argue that the president controls the money and now you argue that congress controls foreign policy? perhaps it is just your hearts desire to excuse the inexcuseable?

Whatever lame excuse you are using, one thing is for sure. You dont know much about them guvmint agents, or how it works. Do you bubba?


i am certain none of those words are mine, i was making no such argument nor any excuses for anyone or anything.

the problem with the printed word is that it leaves a trail.


it's no problem for me since i don't presume to put words in others' mouths nor do i knowingly, much less deliberately, make false claims against them. for those very same reasons, i've no doubt it must be very problematic for you.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
kingbeeAugust 21, 2007 18:39:50


First, your words stand. I have nothing to appologize for the words you posted here. You may now clarify them (you are still dancing on that one), but they do support my laugh.

Second, I have looked some, but do not feel my time is worth looking more for the second half of my allegation. Indeed, I may have been confused as to your statements and others of your side of the spectrum. Nevertheless, I will withdraw my comment about you alleging "Bush's recession". I know of no direct statement made by you alleging such an allegation.

Therefore, I will offer you an appology for the second half of the allegation I made. That you did not know the legislature controls the purse strings.

I am sorry I stated that kingbee accused Bush of the recession and that he (kingbee) did not know the division of powers dictated by the constitution.

I stand by my interpretation of the first half, but will concede that perhaps he was not eloquent enough in his original statement to make clear he was not assigning the power of treaties to congress.

And for the record, it is not a problem to me. I stand by all my statements, and do correct/appolgize when I am wrong.