# Here's one for u libs.



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

It is amazing how the facts are unimportant to so many, and how soon they forget! (Read through to the bottom!)

"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 time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US 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 (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), 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 invigorated 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, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated 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." - Sen. 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 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" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!

Send this to everybody you know..The media and networks won't do it. Why do you suppose that is?


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

I think this belongs in the POLITICS Thread.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I don't find it so bad that Bush removed saddam, he was indeed a threat to the countries around him and to the oil which we recieve from that part of the world. I do however find it quite scummy that he would use the events of 9/11 and al-queda to switch the war over to saddam. At one point in time there was actually a majority of people who thought saddam had been behind 9/11. Misdirection belongs in magic shows, not US politics.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Where the he!! are the WMD's! :******:

All these politicians are the same, they all blame each other. :eyeroll: I will be glad when November is over and the mudslinging calms down for a bit. :-? But it usually starts up again by January. :evil:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

HuntnfishND asks 


> Where the he!! are the WMD's! :******:


It is said history repeats itself, give it some thought please...

At the dawn of World War II, the greatest physicist in the world was - at least arguably - Leipzig University professor Werner Heisenberg, who was known by many of the other great physicists of the time to have been thinking about the theoretical possibility of an atomic bomb.

Indeed, the fact that Heisenberg, unlike many other German physicists, had remained in the fatherland during the Nazi era was one of the prime motivators for the creation of the Manhattan Project. The reason the United States put on a crash program to develop an atomic bomb was the fear that Heisenberg was ahead of them, and that such a device might be available to Hitler at any time.

So worried about Heisenberg was the Office of Strategic Services, forerunner of the CIA, that in December 1944, it put together an astonishingly bold plan that included the distinct possibility of Heisenberg's assassination.

Learning that Heisenberg was going to give a speech in neutral Switzerland, the OSS sent Moe Berg to Zurich with instructions to listen to the speech and if he heard anything that suggested Heisenberg was close to creating an atomic bomb, to shoot him, right there in the lecture hall.

Berg was one of the most fascinating spies in history, a Princeton graduate and backup big-league baseball catcher in real life, depending on which of his lives you choose to consider the real one. In the event, he decided Heisenberg was not close to building a bomb and spared his life.

After the war, Heisenberg although circumspect himself, allowed others to believe and write that the reason the Nazi regime failed to develop an atomic bomb was because he, Heisenberg, deliberately sabotaged the effort. Today, some 27 years after his death, some believe it, some don't.

*It's that way with the secrets of war.* As Heisenberg's biographer, Thomas Powers, put it in discussing the assassination plot: "secrecy was tight, no one knew what the Germans were doing, all believed a German atomic bomb might save Hitler even on the last day of the war."

And if Moe Berg had called fastball instead of curve, Heisenberg, innocent (or not) would have been murdered. That was then. 
that we live in such contentious times in our domestic politics that we can no longer accept that sometimes, secrecy is tight and no one knows what an enemy country is doing. We demand investigations, call for heads to roll - the CIA director at least, the President if at all possible. Newspaper columns are written; Senators dispatched to Sunday morning television shows. A great crisis is manufactured out of the demand that intelligence be perfect. If any one report, among many, can be shown to have recommended something contrary to what the administration believed, proclaimed or acted on, then the administration is charged with deceiving the public. It knew the truth, and here's the memo to prove it.

*But it didn't know the truth. No administration can ever know the truth about what is going on inside another government, particularly when "secrecy is tight." *

One of the plausible explanations about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program, including his nuclear program, is that his scientists, Heisenberg- like, were deceiving him about how well it was all going. Understandably afraid to bear bad news to the murderous dictator, they told him what he wanted to hear.

Maybe it was like that; maybe not. If Powers, after all his research, cannot be one hundred per cent sure about Heisenberg, then it is a cinch we will never know for certain what was going on inside the Ba'ath bureaucracy in Baghdad.

That being the case, surely it is more civilized, in a post-war period, to behave like adults. After World War II, we were:
a) glad we had won;
b) grateful to those, large and small, who had helped; and 
c) prepared to bear enormous expense to rebuild the savage nations we had recently fought. 
As a result, we can read stories like the Heisenberg-Berg encounter as a dramatic episode, filled with the moral ambiguity of life itself. We don't demand an investigation of how one man could have been given a license to kill another based on his impression of a speech on one of the most arcane subjects imaginable in a foreign language. Neither do we demand to know how so much effort could have been expended on the Manhattan Project, the basis of which was an untruth: that Hitler was close to developing an atomic bomb.

*No such weapon of mass destruction was found in postwar Germany. Nonetheless, it might have been, for all anyone knew before or during the war. *

Today, Heisenberg is best remembered for his contribution to quantum physics known as the "uncertainty principle," a principle that applies to life and war as surely as it does to sub-atomic particles. The most certain thing about the end of both World War II and the Iraqi War was that an evil and sadistic dictator had fallen. *That was and is very good news indeed, which no amount of juvenile carping and whining about the details can change. *


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

MT, now that one made alot of sense, you dingaling, typical horse crap out of a lib.


----------



## Shakey (Oct 12, 2002)

Bobm and racer,

BRAVO! and here I thought intelligence and common sense could not exist hand in hand in todays world. Bobm, eloquent and pervasive as your argument was, it was unfortunately not dumbed down enough for the "libbers" uke: racer, how soon they forget, with the assistance of the ultra-liberal media of course. Here is a little saying that I came up with years ago, 
Democrat= I want what you have because it is too hard for me to get.
Republican= I want to make the most of what I have because it will bring me everything I can get.

SHAKEY


----------

