TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Dem Lies Dem Lies-Look At My Surprise!

Dem Lies Dem Lies-Look At My Surprise!

Dems are still lying about lying. LMAO!

"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 , 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

"We 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 destrution 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 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 seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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 Rockerfeller (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. "ithout 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 has 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.

Notice that the same Democ.Rats now say Bush lied
Notice that even Al Gore knew there were WMDs there. is this funny stuff or what?

Go ahead, be a Democ.Rat sheep, no skin off my back if you can't or won't think for yourself.

Aside from Bushe's fanatical and savage christian values, he is a pretty damn good leader when it comes to foreign policy and world leadership. Yes I hate the guy in some respects but also admire some of his doings and courage to stand bold against the UN, the "let's make white flags" French and the backstabing Germans.

Re: Dem Lies Dem Lies-Look At My Surprise!

quote:

Originally posted by PoliticsForum Aside from Bushe's fanatical and savage christian values, he is a pretty damn good leader when it comes to foreign policy and world leadership. Yes I hate the guy in some respects but also admire some of his doings and courage to stand bold against the UN, the "let's make white flags" French and the backstabing Germans.

If being a political isolationist while being a econoic globalizationist is your idea of "good foreign policy" then I suppose that is true.

If Bush was so damn good at foreign policy issues how was it he was able to squander a virtual monopoly on international goodwill in little over a year?

I remember watching BBC clips of impromptu candelight vigils on the streets of Tehran on Sept. 12, 2001. Funny how I have seen nothing of that sort from anywhere lately.

Clinton was no saint. Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. My "party affiliation" is the only one I think a free-thinker in American society can be: Independent.


Oh yeah....5 bucks says this new user is DJBARON in disguise.

MrS

Oh come on. We had some 62 nations behind us going into the Iraq war. And we have plenty of international support as well. You just choose to ignore these other facts.

quote:

Originally posted by PoliticsForum Oh come on. We had some 62 nations behind us going into the Iraq war. And we have plenty of international support as well. You just choose to ignore these other facts.

62 nations......a vast majority of them are either heavily funded by the US government or want to be heavily funded by the US.

I do not ignore this "Coalition of the Willing". My point had nothing to do with the Iraq war directly. It had to do with attitude.

The Bush administration squandered virtually unanimous support from the world community after Sept 11, 2001. The only notable exceptions were North Korea and Iraq. Even Iran sent their condolences and gave assistance of a sort during the overthrown of the Taliban.

MrS

omg a politician lied! at least clinton didnt get us into an long term occupation

quote:

Originally posted by PoliticsForum Oh come on. We had some 62 nations behind us going into the Iraq war. And we have plenty of international support as well. You just choose to ignore these other facts.

yeah and one of those nations is worse than saddam himself, uzbekistan's islam karimov!

edit: also more than 62 nations were against us, including iirc both our nieghbors, canada and mexico.

quote:

Originally posted by rizen one of those nations is worse than saddam himself, uzbekistan's islam karimov!

You mean you don't like the idea of a former communist party boss turning a country into a personality cult revolving around himself?



Karimov is an interesting case at the very least. Looking at his first name this is a kind of ironic quote:

quote:

From Human Rights Watch"Such people must be shot in the forehead! If necessary, I'll shoot them myself�!" - President Karimov, upon the 1998 adoption of a highly restrictive religion law, warning parliament not to be soft on "Islamic extremists." Many peaceful Muslims have also been rounded up in the sweeps of "fundamentalists." BBC Monitoring report of Uzbek Radio second program, May 1, 1998.

Personality cults are kind of fun to look at from afar...I don't really want to be around in a place where it is the norm though.

MrS

quote:

Originally posted by rizen omg a politician lied! at least clinton didnt get us into an long term occupationyeah and one of those nations is worse than saddam himself, uzbekistan's islam karimov! edit: also more than 62 nations were against us, including iirc both our nieghbors, canada and mexico.

Canada + Mexico = 2 notably LIBERAL countries...

Since when does anyone care about mexico's support or position. The country is run by thugs and communists.

Both parties may have lied, but only one party used them as a justification to go to war.

quote:

Oh come on. We had some 62 nations behind us going into the Iraq war. And we have plenty of international support as well. You just choose to ignore these other facts.

Ah yeah the "coalition of the willing". How many nations supported the war with anything other than lip-service? Two, if you exclude the US wasn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel Personality cults are kind of fun to look at from afar...I don't really want to be around in a place where it is the norm though.

Lol, my thoughts exactly

Anyway, about the coalition of the willing, only 62/190 or so countries agreed to support the US. They were, however, influenced by financial rewards if they participated, or were threatened with various political and financial sanctions if they didn't. Regardless of that, less than 1/3 of the countries decided to participate. Out of those who did, most of them had public opinion vastly turned against the war.

quote:

Originally posted by Toscher Sedai Canada + Mexico = 2 notably LIBERAL countries...

so what if they are liberal, dont you think they would of benefited even more if they went along with us

quote:

Originally posted by PoliticsForum Since when does anyone care about mexico's support or position. The country is run by thugs and communists.

well i could see why you wouldnt care, since you havnt said anything about uzbekistan. you know who supports those thugs right? yup the US.

quote:

Originally posted by PoliticsForum Oh come on. We had some 62 nations behind us going into the Iraq war. And we have plenty of international support as well. You just choose to ignore these other facts.

LOOL man go get a clue.

LoL guys.. PoliticsForum is Bush browsing TA!

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX LoL guys.. PoliticsForum is Bush browsing TA!

nah if it was, he would launch a non UN backed, "coalition of the willing", attack on swamper and tell the american people trance is terrorism

quote:

Originally posted by rizen nah if it was, he would launch a non UN backed, "coalition of the willing", attack on swamper and tell the american people trance is terrorism

roflmao

quote:

Originally posted by rizen so what if they are liberal, dont you think they would of benefited

It's not about benefit, it's politics. And Canada and Mexico are part of the UN. Being liberal makes a big difference in the stance of war.So why would they support the US in it's "imperial conquest," or so many believe

Re: Re: Dem Lies Dem Lies-Look At My Surprise!

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel Oh yeah....5 bucks says this new user is DJBARON in disguise. MrS

screw american politics man!!!!

gimme dat 5 bucks!!!!!

I don't need to go into some new 'disguise' to post something.

but the fact that someone does, I think shows the low quality of people in here! we have to hide our true feelings for gay ass political correctness.

probobly just a few more months.... I can't wait

idiot leftwingers and peacefucks and terrorist/arab-sympathizers(screw political terms for now) will learn of their mistakes...

the dominos are being setup... some people here know what i am talking about... soon everyone will see what happens when we become spineless every-friggin-thing-hugging pussies!

If only people would listen!

quote:

Originally posted by Toscher Sedai It's not about benefit, it's politics. And Canada and Mexico are part of the UN. Being liberal makes a big difference in the stance of war.So why would they support the US in it's "imperial conquest," or so many believe

political benefits, in mexico's case allowing a seasonal work permit for farm workers

btw i didnt know, by not supporting this war it made you a liberal. i guess someone should of told buchanan's consertivie ass to support the invasion of iraq

quote:

Originally posted by rizen political benefits, in mexico's case allowing a seasonal work permit for farm workers btw i didnt know, by not supporting this war it made you a liberal. i guess someone should of told buchanan's consertivie ass to support the invasion of iraq

I apologize if my response gave the impression that

liberals = no war
conservatives = for war

one or the other.....

must people always follow word for word??

quote:

Originally posted by Toscher Sedai I apologize if my response gave the impression that liberals = no war conservatives = for war one or the other..... must people always follow word for word??

Most Catholics and other religions are conservative..yet, they were against war. ( THE POPE ).... the only reason conservatives supported war was because its Bush.. if not, they wouldnt have.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Most Catholics and other religions are conservative..yet, they were against war. ( THE POPE ).... the only reason conservatives supported war was because its Bush.. if not, they wouldnt have.

Oh come now Liquid, you know that's not true.

quote:

Originally posted by Toscher Sedai Oh come now Liquid, you know that's not true.

You forgot Rome? one of the biggest Against war activists. I didnt say Protestants, whom they did support in majority, but I guess thats because Bush is in that religion... im no expoert on this.. Im just been picky.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.