Democrats 180 on the War

Boedy · 03-15-2003, 08:31 AM

Here is Bill Clinton :1998

What if Saddam Hussein "fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

"Just consider the facts. Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth."

"Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

"Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it."

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

And Him Today

Bill Clinton: 2002
"Saddam Hussein didn't kill 3,100 people on Sept. 11," he said. "Osama bin Laden did, and as far as we know he's still alive."
"I also believe we might do more good for American security in the short run at far less cost by beefing up our efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere to flesh out the entire network."

Regarding Saddam's WMD's, Clinton said, "He has maximum incentive not to use this stuff. If we go, he has maximum incentive to use it because he knows he's going to lose."

Tom Daschle:1998

"Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

Tom Daschle:2002

"I really haven't made up my mind at all."

"Some of our questions were answered but there are a lot more out there that need to be addressed before we can make any conclusive decision on what needs to be done.

"Preemptive strikes are not something we do. And for us to depart from that practice and take this action requires I think very careful deliberation and that's what we're going to give it."

"There will be those who will support the President under any circumstances. There will be those who probably will never be satisfied that there is adequate cause for an invasion any time in the foreseeable future. There is a large number of people in the middle, and I'm one of them."

"Some of our questions were answered but there are a lot more out there that need to be addressed before we can make any conclusive decision on what needs to be done."

John Kerry:1998

"If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the U.N. resolution for inspections, and UNSCOM cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press that case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights," Kerry said February 23, 1998. "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

John Kerry: 2002

"If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act. But until we have properly laid the groundwork and proved to our fellow citizens and our allies that we really have no other choice, we are not yet at the moment of unilateral decision-making in going to war against Iraq."
(September 6, 2002 NYTimes Op Ed)

Two things have changed since 1998:

<ul type="square">[*]Saddam has had four years without inspectors to expand his WMD programs.[/list]

<ul type="square">[*]A Republican is in the White House
Only one conclusion is evident:[/list]
The Democrats are playing politics with the lives of American citizens.

Bill Links

What Congress did in 1998

Looks Familiar

[ 03-15-2003, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Boedy ]

Degner · 03-15-2003, 09:09 AM

It's amazing how fast people can whistle a different tune. Did they forget what they said or just think the American people are stupid enough not to remember?

speyfly · 03-15-2003, 09:50 AM

I find it interesting and quit amazing how some will over simplify to justify their position in the face of emerging information and a rapidly changing world. It has been said before by others, but in regards to this topic it needs to be said again and again and again.

This administration had the support of the entire world after 9/11 and many people from around the globe stated that they were Americans and supported this country even though they were not citizens of the USA. It has been the TOTAL FAILURE of this administration that has taken the US and the world to this point. In its arrogance, this administration has destroyed the trust that we once (not so long ago) had and it�s inability or refusal to be honest has created this monster. What has happened to the campaign phrase; �I am a uniter, not a divider�? I fear that like many other words that have been spoken by this White House, they were just empty promises and word that had no true meaning endangering the life and liberty of every person in this country and abroad.

So here we are, the world does not trust our leaders and they fear this country. Not what I would call good leadership in any sense of the words. George and his administration are the only ones to blame here. They have lied, mislead, manufactured intelligence either directly or indirectly, threatened and bought off to promote their program and the world see it for what it really is, just hollow words and empty promises and an agenda that is secret and self-serving.

To respond to where some politicians were after 9/11 and where they stand today, many things have changed over the last few months and given the political global fallout, I think they are right to change their views. That is what they are supposed to do, change with the times and do what they think is best for this country and to represent their constituent�s.

Degner · 03-15-2003, 10:14 AM

saddamy has not changed, the threats he poses has not changed. The only failure I see is that Bush cares too much what the "world" thinks. Recent events have shown all too well just what good "friends" we have.

I also would argue that much of the "support" we received after 9/11 was at best superficial and its true intent was to try to prevent us from making a few more parking lots

Boedy · 03-15-2003, 10:30 AM

Well said Degner!

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

03-15-2003, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thumper:
Degner and Boedy --- well said indeed. The liberals are not anti-war. They are anti-Republican. And that calls into question their basic honesty. Too bad....... :depressed:

Oh that's right Jack I forgot that conservatives are pillars of truth,virtue and honesty

speyfly · 03-15-2003, 01:01 PM

Thumper, your quote:
�The liberals are not anti-war. They are anti-Republican. And that calls into question their basic honesty. Too bad....... �

You are probably right that there are some that are just anti-Republican, I will say that I know many progressive conservatives that have voted conservative party lines most of the time but they are starting to have second thoughts. The polls are indicating that some conservatives and much of the Centrists voting block are having a tuff time supporting the Republican Party these days.

To imply that anyone that anti-war supporters are liberal and to say that they are anti -Republican is a naive and uniformed statement. I know that as an Independent, I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Now let me define my political position; I believe that this country has a responsibility to the old and the young but I don�t support welfare whether for the poor or corporations. I believe in a balanced budget and the removal of big money interests in our election campaigns by way of campaign finance reform and limiting the influence that big business has on our elections and laws. I am pro-environment not just here in this country (others deserve the same as we demand) but pro business. I am for free trade but it has to be linked with finance reform, I support national security but tempered by common sense, I believe in international relationships including military support but without having to buy these relationships. For the sake of not boring you I will stops here but the primary parties are evenly split and as the guy or gal in the middle (swing voters) have become the most important voter and will decide all elections in this country for many years to come.

[ 03-15-2003, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: speyfly ]

HOGTIDE · 03-15-2003, 01:35 PM

Betcha a million bucks....93.2% of the demonstrators are liberal. 89.6% of that group are partyline indoctrinated Bush/Republican nay sayers.

...but is it 'wrong' to demonstrate? You don't need to apologize for your people!

Thumper · 03-15-2003, 02:54 PM

Hmmmmm ... Come to think of it, I guess I am not so much pro-war as I am anti-Democrat ... Make that anti-liberal.

Did I just say that???

Thumper · 03-15-2003, 11:16 PM

Degner and Boedy --- well said indeed. The liberals are not anti-war. They are anti-Republican. And that calls into question their basic honesty. Too bad....... :depressed: