democrats on WMD's

2007-02-11 08:27:54

#1

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7078|USA

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Presented in this context, the flip flopping and out right betrayal of support for the coalitions efforts is pretty bad.

I found this looking for nancy pelosi fodder.

2007-02-11 08:31:59

#2

usmarine2007: Banned; +374|6794|Columbus, Ohio

Nice. People have very short memories around here. Maybe since they were still in diapers during the Clinton years.

2007-02-11 09:05:33

#3

Fancy_Pollux: Connoisseur of Fine Wine; +1,306|7073

usmarine2007 wrote:
Nice. People have very short memories around here. Maybe since they were still in diapers during the Clinton years.

Funny, but true.

2007-02-13 20:18:03

#4

LT.Victim: Member; +1,175|6990|British Columbia, Canada

First to post since crash!

2007-02-13 21:13:53

#5

kilgoretrout: Member; +53|6897|Little Rock, AR

The Article wrote:
"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.
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. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Kerry and Clinton both seem to be referring to intelligence reports that we now know were faulty. Whether or not the reports were purposely falsified or real mistakes (that's a whole different debate), the intelligence was wrong. Now they're calling for a change in policy in Iraq because what we're doing isn't working well and we based our invasion on information that has turned out to be untrue.

I'm not a big Kerry or Clinton fan; considering current Presidential hopefuls, I'll probably vote Republican. But I don't think it's fair to be attacking them for "flip-flopping" or whatever you want to call it. If you act on information that proves to be false, you should consider changing what you're doing.

2007-02-13 21:21:57

#6

mcgid1: Meh...; +129|7143|Austin, TX/San Antonio, TX

kilgoretrout wrote:
The Article wrote:
"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.
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. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Kerry and Clinton both seem to be referring to intelligence reports that we now know were faulty. Whether or not the reports were purposely falsified or real mistakes (that's a whole different debate), the intelligence was wrong. Now they're calling for a change in policy in Iraq because what we're doing isn't working well and we based our invasion on information that has turned out to be untrue.

I'm not a big Kerry or Clinton fan; considering current Presidential hopefuls, I'll probably vote Republican. But I don't think it's fair to be attacking them for "flip-flopping" or whatever you want to call it. If you act on information that proves to be false, you should consider changing what you're doing.

But there were also quotes in there indicating that Kerry and various other Democratic congressmen believed that weapons of mass destruction were present long before Bush took office. For example:

"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.

"[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.

2007-02-13 21:25:40

#7

ownership10: Member; +9|7159

if the american ppl loved the war, clinton and kerry would love it too. i hate politics, but the upcoming presidential election has me really pissed. no candidate has offered an iraq plan, they just say the opposite of what ever dubbua says cause he approval rating is low. if his approval rating was 80 the would be kissing his ass. i'm not saying george is a glorious leader, but at least he is doing what he thinks is right not what the latest gallop poll says would win votes. and the whole flip-flopping thing...if i shot someone cause i though he was robbing a store when he was really buying something because of faulty intel, i couldn't just take it back cause i was wrong. that the democrats are trying to do. they voted for the war, didn't like the way it turned out and now are against it. you made your own bed, now lay in it

2007-02-13 21:26:24

#8

kilgoretrout: Member; +53|6897|Little Rock, AR

Both of those quotes suggest that Iraq was developing weapons, which is a far cry from possessing them. We're getting up in arms about Iran possibly developing a nuke. If we thought they actually had one, it would be a whole new ballgame.

2007-02-13 21:30:41

#9

kilgoretrout: Member; +53|6897|Little Rock, AR

ownership10 wrote:
and the whole flip-flopping thing...if i shot someone cause i though he was robbing a store when he was really buying something because of faulty intel, i couldn't just take it back cause i was wrong. that the democrats are trying to do. they voted for the war, didn't like the way it turned out and now are against it. you made your own bed, now lay in it

That's a really bad analogy. We can't take back the fact that we invaded Iraq, of course. No one is trying to take it back. Yes, lots of people have said if they had the intel we have now they wouldn't've voted to go to war. But you can't take it back. However, we can use the information we now have to help formulate our policy for the continuation of the war. We don't just need to go full steam ahead, we need to fix our policy. However, I completely agree with you concerning political bullshit. I agree 100% that none of the canditates has put out a viable option for winning the war.

2007-02-14 02:36:19

#10

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6988

We've been over this before. The fact that Iraq was still pursuing a WMD program in 1998 does not mean he still was immediately prior to the invasion.

Further, all comments made after Bush came into power had to be made based on intelligence which he chose to release, which would obviously support his viewpoint.

That's not to say I necessarily think the Democrats as a whole are better than Republicans. The more I hear about American politics the more I feel that Republicans, by and large, may be violent, wealthy, lieing assholes, but at least they're reliable violent, wealthy, lieing assholes.

2007-02-14 05:32:43

#11

iamangry: Member; +59|7072|The United States of America

You know, this doesn't redeem the current administration for anything. All it does is makes the democrats look retarded too. Which can bring us back to something we've been able to agree on already... Our politicians = retarded

2007-02-14 06:30:11

#12

JahManRed: wank; +646|7055|IRELAND

I have no doubt that Clinton, if he had been allowed to stay another term, would have invaded Iraqi. As an outsider, I don't see much difference between the Dem and the Lib governments of the past 20 years. The only difference is the Lib's seamed to be a little more savvy with regards to international relations.

2007-02-14 17:21:17

#13

Fancy_Pollux: Connoisseur of Fine Wine; +1,306|7073

This thread is unusually quiet. I wonder why...

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/deathbym0nkeyz/image001.jpg

2007-02-14 17:31:57

#14

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6832|North Carolina

I'm glad this thread exists. It shows which Democrats are truly antiwar, and which ones aren't.

Clinton's foreign policies were one aspect of his presidency that I didn't care for. He was too interventionist for my tastes.

Yet, it is true (as kilgoretrout posted) that most of those quotes were reflecting on data now known to be faulty. The problem with Bush's rationales for invading Iraq was that most of the intelligence used to back them up was sketchy at best.

One thing is for sure though.... We knew for a fact that Saddam had WMDs in the first half of the 90s, because he still had many weapons that he bought from us.

Considering things like the weapons trade meeting that Rumsfeld attended with Saddam back in 1983 (the one you've probably seen pictures of), it seems ironic and even hypocritical that we would condemn Saddam for having these weapons. If we were really concerned about the proliferation of WMD's to dictators, we wouldn't have sold them to him in the first place.

That being said, we'll likely continue to arm dictators, since it's a highly profitable industry that we, the U.K., France, Russia, and China all indulge in.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-02-14 17:34:01)

2007-02-14 18:15:32

#15

usmarine2007: Banned; +374|6794|Columbus, Ohio

The 1998 quotes say it all. Dems....STFU about being tricked into voting for the war in Iraq. This includes you Hillary.

2007-02-14 20:27:38

#16

Major_Spittle: Banned; +276|7082|United States of America

usmarine2007 wrote:
The 1998 quotes say it all. Dems....STFU about being tricked into voting for the war in Iraq. This includes you Hillary.

It wasn't faulty inteligence cuz Bush was lying, just like Clinton was in 1998........ DOH

OK, it was faulty inteligence, except for the weapons already found....... DOH

But Suddam didn't have any ties to terrorists, except for the ones he trained in his training camp..... DOH

Suddam having WMDs were the only reason givin' for going to war, except for him breaking UN resolutions for weapons inspectors, him abusing the oil for food program to build a military, the threat of him acquiring WMDs, building a democracy in the region to develop stability in the ME, and him being a threat to US interests in the region as a proven aggressor...... DOH

Gee, ever get the feeling that liberals are just stupid and it is pointless to even try. 1+1 always equals 3 with these idiots.

2007-02-14 20:31:54

#17

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6832|North Carolina

Major, sometimes the irony of you calling someone stupid is just too much.

2007-02-14 20:38:14

#18

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6956|Global Command

Turquoise wrote:
Major, sometimes the irony of you calling someone stupid is just too much.

He speaks truth, he just says it in a painful sort of way. It's part of his charm.

+1 to Spit.

2007-02-14 20:44:44

#19

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6832|North Carolina

*shrugs* Fine, I'll give you this much. The neoliberals are no better than the neoconservatives.

Whatever happened to the true liberals (paleoliberals) and the true conservatives (paleoconservatives)?

2007-02-14 20:53:12

#20

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6956|Global Command

" paleoconservatives "
LMFAO
+1 to you too.

2007-02-14 20:56:15

#21

AchangelTyreal: 360 owns my soul; +31|6936|Behind You

lowing wrote:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Presented in this context, the flip flopping and out right betrayal of support for the coalitions efforts is pretty bad.

I found this looking for nancy pelosi fodder.

LMFAO at the repetition of FOX news talking points. Flip floppers, wow...learn to fucking think for yourself and start watching a news show that actually reports..*gasp* news. Good day.

2007-02-14 20:57:23

#22

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6832|North Carolina

I'm not a social conservative at all, but at least people like Pat Buchanan aren't so eager to enter war. And yes, they do call themselves paleoconservatives often.

It's not an insult to people who actually are part of the Old Left or Old Right to use the prefix paleo- in naming their philosophies. I can see how it might be amusing to some, but personally, I found both to be more levelheaded than the neo types, even if I disagree with both of them.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-02-14 20:58:18)

2007-02-15 06:46:15

#23

usmarine2007: Banned; +374|6794|Columbus, Ohio

ATG wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Major, sometimes the irony of you calling someone stupid is just too much.
He speaks truth, he just says it in a painful sort of way. It's part of his charm.

+1 to Spit.

Agree

2007-02-15 11:13:51

#24

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6872|The Land of Scott Walker

Fancy_Pollux wrote:
This thread is unusually quiet. I wonder why...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/ … age001.jpg

roflmao +1

AchangelTyreal wrote:
lowing wrote:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Presented in this context, the flip flopping and out right betrayal of support for the coalitions efforts is pretty bad.

I found this looking for nancy pelosi fodder.
LMFAO at the repetition of FOX news talking points. Flip floppers, wow...learn to fucking think for yourself and start watching a news show that actually reports..*gasp* news. Good day.

lmao at lib talking points "Fox news . . . blah blah blah . . . biased . . . blah blah . . . *dodge subject* . . . blah blah . . . all neocons are sheep . . . blah blah blah."

Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-02-15 11:17:44)

2007-02-15 13:24:35

#25

AchangelTyreal: 360 owns my soul; +31|6936|Behind You

Stingray24 wrote:
Fancy_Pollux wrote:
This thread is unusually quiet. I wonder why...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/ … age001.jpg
roflmao +1

AchangelTyreal wrote:
lowing wrote:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Presented in this context, the flip flopping and out right betrayal of support for the coalitions efforts is pretty bad.

I found this looking for nancy pelosi fodder.
LMFAO at the repetition of FOX news talking points. Flip floppers, wow...learn to fucking think for yourself and start watching a news show that actually reports..*gasp* news. Good day.
lmao at lib talking points "Fox news . . . blah blah blah . . . biased . . . blah blah . . . *dodge subject* . . . blah blah . . . all neocons are sheep . . . blah blah blah."

Right, because that's what the liberal news sources report? Oh wait, no that's right, they're not even in the same demension of Bias that Fox News is in.

BF2S Forums democrats on WMD's

usmarine2007 wrote:

The Article wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:

The Article wrote:

ownership10 wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

ATG wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

AchangelTyreal wrote:

lowing wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

AchangelTyreal wrote:

lowing wrote:

Board footer