Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Where Bush got his marching orders.

by Jack Ammann / October 16, 2004 2:25 PM PDT

"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 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 (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 mandate 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 weapon 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 THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Where Bush got his marching orders.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Where Bush got his marching orders.
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re: Where Bush got his marching orders.
by JP Bill / October 16, 2004 11:52 PM PDT

"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."

When someone makes the statement "one way or the other", to me, it means that they have their mind made up and nothing is going to change the objective, (not time or the facts)

So far it looks like they didn't find any weapons of mass distruction.

Collapse -
Good point, Clinton kept them in line without war!
by W2X3XP / October 17, 2004 3:20 AM PDT

Now there was a President worthy of the office. A uniter not a divider. A man who knew how to maintain peace. He knew how to handle things without destroying a country, killing huge numbers of it's innocent citizens, and costing the USA thousands of dead and mangled servicemen and billions of dollars.

Man, Iraq better be worth it! If members here on the board are any indication most seem to think the answer is to incinerate Iraq. If that's the case why did Bush send our boys and girls there to die?

Collapse -
Re: Good point, Clinton kept them in line without war!
by EdH / October 17, 2004 3:52 AM PDT

Yeah, Saddam was so neutralized that he killed hundreds of thousands, filling mass graves. Stole billions of dollars with the collaboration of the UN's "Food for Oil" program which starved his country. Clinton really did a great job of keeping him in check.

Get a @#%$%&* CLUE!!!

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) He kill 'um, we kill 'um, what's the diff?
by W2X3XP / October 17, 2004 7:43 AM PDT
Collapse -
I tell ya here
by netsky / October 28, 2004 6:59 PM PDT

the diff is saddam cut off many heads so that there would be only one.


WE go in an cut off one head, saddam's, and LO! from its place springs millions of new heads (new, incognito terrorists this time) in a place where, before our Morass, there was only one big terrorist (saddam) and occasional houseguest name nidal.

Collapse -
Only one thing wrong with this ...
by Evie / October 17, 2004 4:02 AM PDT

... he didn't keep them in line, he emboldened them. His policies also led to N.Korea getting nukes because they cheated on their sweetheart deal with Carter, Saddam got billions from the Oil-for-Food fiasco, Osama bin Laden grew bigger cahones and was left to grow his organization in relative peace, etc.

Collapse -
Re: i think i need glasses :-)
by jonah jones / October 17, 2004 6:50 AM PDT

i thought you wrote "Osama bin Laden grew bigger cahones and was left to grow his organ in relative peace, etc."

Wink

.

Collapse -
Clinton kept them WHERE without WHAT!
by Catgic / October 17, 2004 5:35 AM PDT

A summary record of want happened during the 2922 days of U. S. Commander-in-Chief Clinton?s Administration:

1993: World Trade Centre Bombing
1993: ?Black Hawk Down? Debacle Mogadishu, Somalia (18 G.I.s killed)
1995: Bombing of U.S. Military in Saudi Arabia (5 G.I.s killed)
1995: 20,000 U.S. Troops Deployed to Bosnia-Hercegovina
1996: Khobar Towers Bombing of U.S. G.I.?s (19 G.I.s killed/200 G.I.s Injured)
1996: 5,000 Troops Deployed to Kuwait
1998: U.S. Embassy Bombing in Africa (257 killed/5,000 Injured)
1999: U.S. Air Campaign Kosovo
1999: U.S. Deployed 7,000 Ground Troops to Kosovo
2000: USS Cole Bombing (17 Sailors killed/3 Injured)
1993-2001: WJC Ordered 33 Different Special Troop Deployments

WJC left office 20 January 2001. 233 days, later on 11 September 2001, Osama Bin Laden had 3030 Americans killed and 2337 injured.

Is this a record and lasting legacy of a man who ?kept [Terrorist] in line?who knew how to maintain peace?and handle things??

Collapse -
Clinton wanted to but, like Kerry, was concerned
by Dragon / October 17, 2004 10:03 AM PDT

about what other countries would think.

I know for a fact that Clinton couldve killed Osama with a missile attack, but killed the mission, instead. This is according to Bill Morris.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Woops, I meant "****" Morris, not "Bill" Morris
by Dragon / October 17, 2004 10:06 AM PDT
Collapse -
There you go using facts again...
by C1ay / October 17, 2004 12:07 AM PDT

Nobody's supposed to remember what any of those democrats said, especially the remarks by Kerry.

Collapse -
Re: Where Bush got his marching orders.
by EdH / October 17, 2004 12:40 AM PDT

If Clinton had done what Bush did (and he should have) he would be considered more of a god than ever to the liberals.

Collapse -
Where Bush got his marching orders...Scholarly trench work.
by Catgic / October 17, 2004 1:01 AM PDT

Yee Haw, Jack! You?re one Lone Star State cowboy of a data miner.

You must have burned up much mouse pad leather and Information Trail bandwidth trackin? down all those golden nuggets of Clintonista INTEL.

Collapse -
I know one thing, Ole Dave Conker, being from Texas, betta..
by Jack Ammann / October 17, 2004 1:45 AM PDT

...gather up all his friends and all their friends and all their friend's friends and vote the democratic way by voting one or two hundred times apiece to even make a small dent on Bush's 25% (+ -) lead in Texas. All this rhetorical garbage I see coming out of Harris (Houston) and Galveston Counties is absolutely akin to flatulating in one of those hurricanes. So does anyone know who the Houston Chronical endorces?

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Please explain as i dont get your point
by gearup / October 17, 2004 2:22 AM PDT
Collapse -
Re: I know one thing, Ole Dave Conker, being from Texas, bet
by Catgic / October 17, 2004 4:09 AM PDT

Jack, maybe Gearup ??don?t get your point,? but I do?loud and clear.? Ole Dave ?Conker,? and even ole Joe Cocker, will be needed to ?vote the democratic way by voting one or two hundred times apiece to even make a small dent on Bush's 25% (+/-) lead in Texas.?

DEM Dems IS good at it. They?re swarming for their ?Moose on the Loose? down here in Florida, like beach flies on a dead fish. They?re looking for ?disenfranchised? limousine liberal voters in Florida ?Gold Coast? counties like Palm Beach, Broward and Dade. Imagine somebody in the top IRS tax bracket, who is driven to the polling place in a Limo, being ?disenfranchised.? They want to make sure ?every vote is counted,? particularly, that all BLANK or SPOILED ballots are counted for Kerry.

This same Democrat ?flatulence? occurred in Chicago for the JFK vs. RMN Election 1960; and the aroma wasn?t a West wind blowing across the World Famous Chicago Stockyards and Slaughterhouse.

I was born in the same Chicago district that gave Mayor Richard Joseph Daley his start as a City Alderman. Permit me to comment on the good Mayor?s 1960 Chicagoland ?JFK Vote Generating Machine.?

Were it not for the ability of Chicago?s own ?Leprechaun? Mayor Richard J. Daley to deliver his ?Irish Treasure Trove? of Chicagoland votes for JFK in 1960, ?out of nothing,? the President sworn in by the Chief Justice on January 20, 1961 would have been RMN, not JFK. I venture to say that even my dearly departed Grandfather, who left us in 1941, my Grandmother, who left us in 1947, my other Grandfather who passed in 1956, and the ?registered voters? residing in all of Chicago?s Cemeteries ?voted? for JFK in that 1960 Presidential election.

Jack, you better post a watch over at the Alamo or there will be 189 more Kerry votes, including votes from William Travis, Davy Crockett, and Jim Bowie Wink

Collapse -
Re: Where Bush got his marching orders...Scholarly trench wo
by cbbrown / October 17, 2004 3:14 AM PDT

And to think that emailSTRIPPER at papercut.biz could have removed those ">>>" if he was willing.

Collapse -
That was petty.......
by Glenda / October 17, 2004 3:17 AM PDT

Nothing to say about those facts?
Glenda

Collapse -
(NT) (NT)">>>" vs. The Facts? U R seeing the trees not the forest
by Catgic / October 17, 2004 4:22 AM PDT
Collapse -
Re: Where Bush got his marching orders.
by ForTheTruth / October 28, 2004 12:07 PM PDT

This popular posting is full of mistruths. These quotes are taken out of context. Here are the true quotes.


Where Bush Got His Marching Orders Oh, really?



"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

?in the same article?While the United States still prefers a diplomatic solution to the current standoff with Iraq, one way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction





"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

?then Mr. Clinton repeated that the United States prefers a diplomatic solution to the crisis. He said Mr. Saddam could end the standoff by simply agreeing to allow free, full, and unfettered access to suspected weapons sites anywhere in Iraq. Of course he then authorized cruise missile strikes on Iraq later in 1998 in Operation Desert Fox.





"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, Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998

Score one for the Republicans. This statement is not taken out of context. She also said? "The United States does not challenge Iraq's territorial integrity, nor do we want to see the Iraqi people suffer any further," Albright said. "Our problem and the world's problem is with Iraq's leaders. And today those leaders have a choice. They can allow U.N. inspections to proceed on the world's terms, or they can invite serious military strikes on ours."




"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

During that same meeting Berger also spoke about how to make Saddam Hussein comply with United Nations weapons inspectors: Berger won strong applause when he insisted Washington is still hoping for a peaceful way to persuade Saddam to give United Nations inspectors free access to suspected weapons sites.





"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 (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

After searching, I could not locate this letter to authenticate it.





"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 "San Fran Nan"

?She also said: I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a lasting solution through diplomatic means.





"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

True





"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

Liar! Senator Bob Graham of Florida was not one of the signatories to that letter.





"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."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

The Bush administration is in power during this time and declared hard evidence of WMD. The preceding paragraph of the meeting transcript states: We welcome Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers to the Committee. Next week the Committee will hear from former senior military commanders on Monday and from former national security officials on Wednesday.





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

?The next two paragraphs:

We have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist groups. However, if Iraq came to resemble Afghanistan with no central authority but instead local and regional warlords with porous borders and infiltrating members of Al Qaeda then these widely dispersed supplies of weapons of mass destruction might well come into the hands of terrorist groups.

If we end the war in Iraq the way we ended the war in Afghanistan, we could easily be worse off than we are today. When Secretary Rumsfeld was asked recently about what our responsibility for destabilizing Iraq would be in an aftermath of an invasion, he said, "That's for the Iraqis to come together and decide."





"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, Former Vice President, Sept. 23, 2002

No problem





"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 entire statement: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. He also said in the same speech: Before we go to war, we should give the international community the chance to meet the President's challenge - to renew its resolve to disarm Saddam Hussein completely and effectively.





"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

?Next sentence: The Senate is rushing to vote on whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. Why is war being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort? Why is Congress being pressured to act now, as of today, 33 days before a general election when a third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives are in the final, highly politicized, weeks of election campaigns? As recently as Tuesday (Oct. 1), the President said he had not yet made up his mind about whether to go to war with Iraq. And yet Congress is being exhorted to give the President open-ended authority now, to exercise whenever he pleases, in the event that he decides to invade Iraq. Why is Congress elbowing past the President to authorize a military campaign that the President may or may not even decide to pursue? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?





"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

?Next sentence: I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein. Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.





"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

?Again ? the Bush Administration told him that. He then said?Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet.





"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

?He then goes on to say: And now, time has run out. It has been four long years since the last UN weapons inspectors were effectively ejected from Iraq because of Saddam's willful noncompliance with an effective inspection regime.

What Saddam has done in the interim is not known for certain - but there is every evidence, from the dossier prepared by the Prime Minister of Britain, to President Bush's speech at the United Nations, that Saddam has rebuilt substantial chemical and biological weapons stocks, and that he is determined to obtain the means necessary to produce nuclear weapons. He has ballistic missiles, and more are on order.





"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon 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

?She then says?However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.





"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

Again, based on (faulty) intelligence reports from the Bush Administration.





"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

?Once again, the remainder of the statement? But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.





Send this to everybody you know. The networks won't do it. It's up to us to get the word out. Hey, I totally agree. Don?t let the twists get to you! You can decipher mudslinging commercials at www.factcheck.org. Find the truth about internet rumors at www.snopes.com.

Collapse -
You Did Real Good...
by Blake Cook / October 28, 2004 2:27 PM PDT

It looks like you put a lot of work and research into this post. If everyone would do this much research for their posts, perhaps most of the misunderstandings and differences would almost cease to exist...

You did a good job ForTheTruth...


Happy

Collapse -
when it comes to (US) politics, i'll be the first to admit
by jonah jones / October 28, 2004 5:46 PM PDT

that i am clueless...

and, when it comes to reading some posts in SE... i sometimes say "DUH? what was THAT all about?"...

apart from this #Senator Bob Graham of Florida was not one of the signatories to that letter# (which btw, would have been better with a list of those who DID sign the letter, and an appropriate link), what was the point of that rather overlong post?

it seems to me that all you did was "put it in context" but basically left the message as it was?

.

Collapse -
Wow! Good post!
by Dan McC / October 29, 2004 12:18 AM PDT

Welcome to Speakeasy.

If you're only going to post once, you've picked the right material!

Dan

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

FALL TV PREMIERES

Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!