In the name of honesty, or expediency?

POINTER94

Vice Admiral
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
5,031
Subject: Where Bush Got His Marching Orders <br /><br /><br /> "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." <br /><br />> > - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 <br /><br />> > <br /><br />"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." <br /><br />> > - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 <br /><br />> > <br /><br />"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." <br /><br />> > - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 <br /><br />> > <br /><br />"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." <br /><br />> > - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 <br /><br />> > <br /><br />"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." <br /><br />- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998 <br /><br />> > <br /><br />"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." <br /><br />- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 <br /><br />> > <br /><br />"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." <br /><br />- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 <br /><br />> > <br /><br />"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." <br /><br />- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 <br /><br /> "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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." <br /><br />- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 <br /><br />> > <br /><br />"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." <br /><br />- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 <br /><br />> > <br /><br />"Iraq's s 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." <br /><br />- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003<br /><br />> > <br /><br />SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY ! <br /><br />> > <br /><br />TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR.
 

PatPatterson

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
May 23, 2004
Messages
640
Re: In the name of honesty, or expediency?

Originally posted by POINTER94:<br /> Subject: Where Bush Got His Marching Orders <br /> .....SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !........
Yeah, that's what they want us to believe. We aren't supposed to remember what they said, or wrote, or their positions then. Only what they say today. And, of course, that will change tomorrow.
 

SpinnerBait_Nut

Honorary Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Aug 25, 2002
Messages
17,651
Re: In the name of honesty, or expediency?

And may change the next day also.
 

PatPatterson

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
May 23, 2004
Messages
640
Re: In the name of honesty, or expediency?

Originally posted by SBN:<br /> And may change the next day also.
Only if the polls say it needs to. The popular thought for the day will always decide what they think, don't you know. :cool:
 

KaGee

Admiral
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
7,069
Re: In the name of honesty, or expediency?

Pointer, unfortunately "truth" is relative for a lot of folks in this country. 2+2 no longer =4 even when documented by the most prestigious mathmaticians. <br /><br />If some Democrat says 2+2=5, the Democratic Leadership will all agree, the news media, led by CBS will parrot it, the union thugs will enforce it and the coalition of the simple minded will march in lock-step. <br /><br />Those who disagree will be tarred and feathered, personally assulted and made out to be the scum of the earth.<br /><br />Finally, George Bush will be accused of not caring for Seniors, children, the "poor" by reducing their benefits... (remember 2+2=5, not4!) and for only caring about his rich buddies by providing tax breaks as they will only pay taxes on $4, instead of $5.<br /><br />Good Greif Charlie Brown! :rolleyes:
 
Top