Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

weasel · Oct 9, 2006, 04:15 pm

from: What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"[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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

Interesting, no? We should feel so proud to live in a society where people are free to flip-flop on some of the most important issues facing the nation and get away with it; kind of makes one feel sad for the supporters of these politicians.

Your comments are appreciated.

RickSp · Oct 9, 2006, 06:24 pm

So politicians believed the lies. Surprise, surprise. So it all must be their fault. Never blame the sumbitches telling the lies.

One thing for damn sure, if you are completely wrong, the first thing to do is admit it, not to "stay the course". That's not a flip, flop. That is just the first rule of holes. When you find yourself in one, stop digging.

bishop · Oct 9, 2006, 06:35 pm

who invaded iraq?

oh.. that's right, it was bush..

underbear1 · Oct 9, 2006, 07:13 pm

Who controls both Houses of Congress and the White House since the begining of the Iraq FIASCO?

Georgia · Oct 9, 2006, 09:07 pm

Funny how such a stupid little person can completely fool so many truly powerful, strong intelectually superior statesmen of all sides and leaders of foreign nations.

My, what an insignificant Pootie-Poot worm can do!

Georgia · Oct 10, 2006, 03:20 pm

I apologize for being unclear, I'll get to my point.

I've heard it said that GWB had no plan going into Iraq and after these years still have no plan. Personally I remain neutral regarding this...and agree with John Edwards ideas.
I've read on these blogs how stupid, vague and bankrupt the president is...a despot idiot who desires to rule the world.
Chimpie. Brainless.

But practically in the same breath he's portrayed as a master politician- a statesman who somehow mesmerized the nation, including many of the leadership in the democratic party. Somehow he was as god himself in swayed many nations into believing Iraq, benign as a newly born kitten as dangerous to world stability requiring joint military action.

It all doesn't wash, just like everyone "believed his lies"

I wonder how he could be so brainless and at the same time so schemely cunning as to "fix" the entire global gasoline market....including markets in India, China, Russia etc....all for a scheme which might help the November election in America?

Now, I don't think anything would be more shoe-in for GWB and the Republicans if they could engineer a complete-total victory in Iraq. Insurgents lay their weapons down...peace and prosperity. A flower in the desert.
With GWB portrayed by the left as omnipotent- superior in planning and cunning- Why doesn't he implement his vast resourcefullness ending the war and landslide the Republicans?

I've heard GWB called psychotic while at the same time another person with similar mindset here at voconvo desire American cities to be "nuked".

It doesn''t add up.

RickSp · Oct 10, 2006, 05:26 pm

George Bush may lack intellectual curiosity. He may be inflexible in his vision, driven by irrational religous views, but he is not stupid. And Bush's brain, Karl Rove, is hardly stupid either. This is exactly why the Bush gang has done so much damage. They have lied us into war and kept so many fooled until recently.

Georgia · Oct 10, 2006, 08:01 pm

...........which begs the question:
If they are superior liars and scheming experts then why no plan for Iraq when they could present a heroic victory, cementing their grip on power?

If they have the ability to fool and doop their political enemies at home, along with statesmen of other countries then surely shouldn't be any problem convincing Iraqi insurgents.

Perhaps the insurgents are intellectually superior to all else?
somehow I don't think so.

RickSp · Oct 10, 2006, 08:10 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Georgia

...........which begs the question:
If they are superior liars and scheming experts then why no plan for Iraq when they could present a heroic victory, cementing their grip on power?

If they have the ability to fool and doop their political enemies at home, along with statesmen of other countries then surely shouldn't be any problem convincing Iraqi insurgents.

Perhaps the insurgents are intellectually superior to all else?
somehow I don't think so.

What a complete non-sequitor. Why would the ability to lie and scheme translate to the ability to plan a war?

You think that an insurgency can be countered by PR? Now that is bizarre.

The Bush administration has been highly capable in cobbling together falsehoods. Not untypical of con-men and schemers, the Bush administration has not managed to be competent in much of anything other than spin. And now their spin has spun.

83% of Americans think Bush is lying to them about Iraq. They are right.

Georgia · Oct 10, 2006, 09:20 pm

Quote:

You think that an insurgency can be countered by PR?

I guess what you are saying is GWB's sources were just PR.
If that's the case then since Democrats believed it, the Democrats are governed by PR along with heads of states and many nations?

Either Democrats blindly and mindlessly follow the winds of PR, believing everything presented to them or they knew what they were talking about in weasel's quotes.

Remember this is Dubya...Chimpie...the Pootie-Poot who can't carry out a war but is able to somehow scheme a plot to rule the world.

I have a used car you'd be interested in.

Zeebadee · Oct 10, 2006, 10:04 pm

Quote:

Quote by: weasel

Interesting, no? We should feel so proud to live in a society where people are free to flip-flop on some of the most important issues facing the nation and get away with it; kind of makes one feel sad for the supporters of these politicians.

Your comments are appreciated.

Bullshit. These quotes are from people who are responding to the information the bush administration released to them. Based on what they were told, it's not hard to see why they would make such statements. But it really doesn't matter what these people said, the buck stops with bush. He's the one who's name will go down in history as making the decision to invade Iraq. The simpleton has allowed rove, rumsfeld, and a host of others to manipulate him into making decisions that will define his administration as simply the worst that America has ever had to endure. It's not their names that will be associated with the 8 years of disastrous mis-administration, it's his own. It's started already - just Google the word "failure" and see what you get.

RVonse · Oct 10, 2006, 11:54 pm

Quote:

Quote by: RickSp

George Bush may lack intellectual curiosity. He may be inflexible in his vision, driven by irrational religous views, but he is not stupid. .

Yes, he really is stupid. Especially in comparison to other American leaders.

Quote:

Quote by: http://www.lovenstein.org/report/

The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points:

147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald R. Ford (R)
176 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald W. Reagan (R)
98 George H. W. Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
91 George W. Bush (R)

The six Republican presidents of the past 60 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155. President G. W. Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91.

But I do agree what liittle intelligence that he possess is well leveraged toward corrupt ends.

Oct 9, 2006, 04:15 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
weasel Marksman Location: "A place that cannot be found except by those who already know where it is." Posts: 199	"What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD" from: What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD "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 \| Source "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 \| Source "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 \| Source "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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 \| Source "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 \| Source "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 \| Source "[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. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 \| Source "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 \| Source "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 \| Source "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 th! e means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 \| Source "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 \| Source "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 \| Source "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 \| Source "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 \| Source "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 \| Source "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 \| Source "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 \| Source Interesting, no? We should feel so proud to live in a society where people are free to flip-flop on some of the most important issues facing the nation and get away with it; kind of makes one feel sad for the supporters of these politicians. Your comments are appreciated. "Rage, rage against the dying of the light." -Dylan Thomas

Oct 9, 2006, 06:24 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
RickSp Volcanic Erupter Posts: 9,491	So politicians believed the lies. Surprise, surprise. So it all must be their fault. Never blame the sumbitches telling the lies. One thing for damn sure, if you are completely wrong, the first thing to do is admit it, not to "stay the course". That's not a flip, flop. That is just the first rule of holes. When you find yourself in one, stop digging. Rick "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

Oct 9, 2006, 06:35 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	who invaded iraq? oh.. that's right, it was bush.. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Oct 10, 2006, 05:26 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
RickSp Volcanic Erupter Posts: 9,491	George Bush may lack intellectual curiosity. He may be inflexible in his vision, driven by irrational religous views, but he is not stupid. And Bush's brain, Karl Rove, is hardly stupid either. This is exactly why the Bush gang has done so much damage. They have lied us into war and kept so many fooled until recently. Rick "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

Oct 9, 2006, 07:13 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
underbear1 BANNED Posts: 2,630	Who controls both Houses of Congress and the White House since the begining of the Iraq FIASCO?

Oct 9, 2006, 09:07 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Georgia Igneous Magma Posts: 183	Funny how such a stupid little person can completely fool so many truly powerful, strong intelectually superior statesmen of all sides and leaders of foreign nations. My, what an insignificant Pootie-Poot worm can do!

Oct 10, 2006, 03:20 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Georgia Igneous Magma Posts: 183	I apologize for being unclear, I'll get to my point. I've heard it said that GWB had no plan going into Iraq and after these years still have no plan. Personally I remain neutral regarding this...and agree with John Edwards ideas. I've read on these blogs how stupid, vague and bankrupt the president is...a despot idiot who desires to rule the world. Chimpie. Brainless. But practically in the same breath he's portrayed as a master politician- a statesman who somehow mesmerized the nation, including many of the leadership in the democratic party. Somehow he was as god himself in swayed many nations into believing Iraq, benign as a newly born kitten as dangerous to world stability requiring joint military action. It all doesn't wash, just like everyone "believed his lies" I wonder how he could be so brainless and at the same time so schemely cunning as to "fix" the entire global gasoline market....including markets in India, China, Russia etc....all for a scheme which might help the November election in America? Now, I don't think anything would be more shoe-in for GWB and the Republicans if they could engineer a complete-total victory in Iraq. Insurgents lay their weapons down...peace and prosperity. A flower in the desert. With GWB portrayed by the left as omnipotent- superior in planning and cunning- Why doesn't he implement his vast resourcefullness ending the war and landslide the Republicans? I've heard GWB called psychotic while at the same time another person with similar mindset here at voconvo desire American cities to be "nuked". It doesn''t add up.

Oct 10, 2006, 08:01 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Georgia Igneous Magma Posts: 183	...........which begs the question: If they are superior liars and scheming experts then why no plan for Iraq when they could present a heroic victory, cementing their grip on power? If they have the ability to fool and doop their political enemies at home, along with statesmen of other countries then surely shouldn't be any problem convincing Iraqi insurgents. Perhaps the insurgents are intellectually superior to all else? somehow I don't think so.