Richard Nixon: "I'm not a crook"
Stan Lippmann: "I'm not a kook"
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 03, 2006 09:36 AM | Email ThisDick Cheney: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Posted by: Cato on November 3, 2006 10:31 AMso what's the plan?
oh, that's right.
let's have a protest.
"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability."
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"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."
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"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."
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."
Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
"[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."
Al Gore > December 16, 1998
"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 > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."
Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002
"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 > February 23, 1998
Americans really need to understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply. ... Saddam has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry > Dec. 16, 1998, press conference.
"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."
John Kerry > Sept. 6, 2002, the New York Times.
"It would be naive to the point of great danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much promised it. ... He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel. ... We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future."
-John Kerry > Oct. 9, 2002, Congressional Record.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority - if necessary - to disarm Saddam, because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our society."
-John Kerry > Oct. 9, 2002, Congressional Record.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal and murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. And we all know the litany of his offenses. The reason I think we need to really think about him is because he presents a particularly grievous threat through the consistency with which he is prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate a former American president. He miscalculated his own military strength and he miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.
"That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose and destroy its weapons programs. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it's not new. Since the end of the Persian Gulf War we've known this."
John Kerry > Jan. 23, 2003, Georgetown University.
So your point is?
Posted by: RBW on November 3, 2006 11:01 AMIn these challenging times, we need to remain strong on national security. Our troops have overthrown dictatorships in Afghanistan and Iraq, and as a side effect, Libya dropped their nuclear program and was neutralized. Due to the heroism, nobility, and sacrifice of our troops, we are safer today.
Of course, we are not safe enough - we still face the dangers posed by North Korea, Syria, and Iran. But can you imagine how much worse it would be if Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were still in power, and if Qaddafi was still pursuing his nuclear program?
The liberation of Iraq is justified for many reasons: Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, the need for a preemptive strategy before Saddam Hussein became an imminent threat, and the goal of regime change and democracy in Iraq. In addition, the Saddam Hussein regime failed to comply with numerous UN resolutions, including resolution #687 which was passed on April 3, 1991 and outlined the ceasefire conditions of the first Gulf War.
In October 2002, when the Congress authorized military action, there was bipartisan agreement on spreading democracy and regime change. The resolution authorizing military action stated: "it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
Naturally, I might be expected to say positive things about people who extend the courtesy of offering themselves as candidates to the public in an election -- or more aptly put, have the guts to do so. But I do feel sincerely about this. Abraham Lincoln ran for office eight times unsuccessfully, but eventually became one of the best Presidents in our nation's history.
Posted by: Richard Pope on November 3, 2006 12:13 PMDoes the President have a plan? It was "stay the course"...now that doesn't seem to be working. What is the President's plan for Iraq?
Posted by: Cato on November 3, 2006 12:42 PMEric...well it seems "we the people" are going to vote the party that took us to war out. I think that's quite a major protest of the peoples part.
Cato...well it seems that you have an overblown sense of "referendum". It makes for nice rhetoric, but does it really mean anything?
First of all, if you vote to remove the party that took us to war, you have to remove both parties because both parties voted to authorize the war. If you dissemble and say it was the president that took us to war, then you had your chance 2 years ago. The "referrendum" then was FOR that party, not aginst it.
If you are concerned about mid-term house elections, then you should know that the AVERAGE number of seats that change in the house to the "off party" since WWII is 25. So if the Dems pick up 25 house seats, then they will have done "average". How any do you think it would take before we could classify it as an "overwhelming" change-over and thus some sort of "referrendum", 30? 40? In 1994, the Rebublicans gained 54 seats. Was that a referrendum against Clinton? Please answer that before commenting on other points.
As for the Seante...
The average changeover is 4 per off year. It is almost always against the party of the president with exceptions in 1962 (Kennedy), 1970 (Nixon) and 2002 (Bush 43). In 1994 the Republicans picked up 8. So, was that a "referrendum" against Clinton as well? How many must be picked up this time to move from "average" changeover to being a protest?
~Eyago
Posted by: Eyago on November 3, 2006 03:02 PMVery intelligent, very well spoken and lots of good political smarts, and a strong lesbian feminist to boot. Seattle loves strong women leaders.
Go Sally, go.
Posted by: Janice on November 4, 2006 08:06 AM