Seattle Times editorial writer Bruce Ramsey on the Times editorial blog today:
Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to "negotiate with terrorists and radicals" is "appeasement." The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.Without bloodshed? Whatever. I wonder how "not unreasonable" Hitler's demands appeared to those in Austria and other "German-speaking areas" who were looking at being on the wrong end of, say, the Nuremberg Laws.What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. He wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed.
But you know, promoting appeasement of Hamas and Iran now by saying that appeasing Hitler in 1938 was reasonable at the time, is not a very persuasive argument.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 16, 2008 12:17 PM | Email ThisThe ignorance on display here is breathtaking.
I'm guessing this is the kind of person who takes
Iran at it's word when it says its nuclear power is only for peaceful purposes.
Why not? The technology they have seems to point that way.
We going to invade a bigger more technologically advanced country when we're already stretched thin for two wars in neighboring countries? Good luck with that. Way to piss off the whole Muslim world, not just the minority sect.
The longer a political discussion drags on, the more likely one side will liken the other to hitler.
At this point, the argument is considered to be over, and the side making the hitler reference automatically loses.
Remarkably, Republicans today are godwinning themselves.
There is zero coherent argument to be made likening Obama's positions to that of any historical / nazi appeasement.
But if you insist on making that argument, you will drive moderates further and further away from any argument you might have to make.
Which would be spiffy.
By the way, I understand a pedophile was caught the other day who worked for Dino Rossi in 2006. Does that make Dino Rossi a pedophile? Are all Republicans pedophiles because of it?
Your arguments are sort of along those lines, keep making them.
Posted by: shawnkempsbartender on May 16, 2008 12:27 PMJust the English speaking parts. (Presumably, France could re-annex the French speaking parts.)
Posted by: Jim Millerk on May 16, 2008 12:29 PMComments like Ramsey's I think point out just how twisted our thinking has become. We can no longer tell the difference between good and evil. Thanks a lot, leftists.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 16, 2008 12:34 PMThe left thinks that war is simply a matter of international misunderstanding, rather than the result of nations hard-headedly pursuing their conflicting interests. All we need to do is get together for a chat, and we won't have any more war!
The right thinks that any talking is appeasement, and that appeasement is always wrong, both of which notions are ludicrous.
Now, I don't happen to think we should appease Iran, but that's because we can destroy Iran. Why would we appease a nation which is so much weaker than we are? I also don't have any problem in principle with talking with Iran or any other nation, even at a summit level. The question is whether or not such talks are in our national interest (or can be made so), and that question is not answerable either by bleating about "appeasement" or by bleating about "moving forward" (as if "forward" is the same direction for them and us).
As to Hitler, the guy has a point.
The problem with appeasing Hitler is that he was lying about his aims. We know this for a fact in hindsight, so we can be smug about it (especially since we didn't live through the largely-pointless horror of World War I). Chamberlain had the big disadvantage of not being able to read future history books.
If in fact all Hitler had wanted was to unify German-speaking Europe, appeasement would have arguably been preferable to war.
To suggest that there was some conflict between appeasing Hitler and helping the Jews is rather disingenuous given that no nation went to war to help the Jews even after appeasement broke down, and there was no prospect of any nation going to war to help the Jews. The fate of the Jews was simply not on the table.
In any case, serious efforts at annihilation of the Jews did not begin until Germany was at war. If war could have been avoided, even German Jews might have been better off. Non-German Jews certainly would.
I realize, of course, that no one cares.
Posted by: ScottM on May 16, 2008 12:37 PMI get sick of reading garbage like this. The Bush Administration has supported talks between Israel and the Palestinians. The statement above is simply untrue.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 16, 2008 12:42 PMAs for the Godwin's Law reference by the bartender (and bartenders are some of my favorite people!), the only ones who have linked Bush's statement to Obama have been the Democrats.
Shame on them.
I've read the complete Bush statement to the Knesset and he does not mention Obama, or even Democrats. Methinks they doth protest too much!
What a bunch of crybabies.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 16, 2008 12:55 PMWrong Kos Kool-Aid drinker.
We going to invade a bigger more technologically advanced country when we're already stretched thin for two wars in neighboring countries? Good luck with that. Way to piss off the whole Muslim world, not just the minority sect.
A. Who said I favored invasion?
B. The Iranian Govt. is not popular with most of the Muslim world, and especially not with it's own people.
And the Bush Adminstration has what to do with "the right"? The State Department in particular is a creature of the internationalist left. They are among those whom I accused of wanting to talk for the sake of talking, so it isn't surprising that they support talks.
However, in your previous post, you yourself equate "talks" with "appeasement":
"Have not Israel and the Palestinians been involved in talks for years? Of course they have and that never stops the Palestinians from raining rockets down on Israel. I think that speaks to Bush's point. Appeasement does not work."
So there you go.
In fact, appeasing (as distinct from talking to) the Palestinians is currently impossible, because the Palestinians' explicit aim is to destroy Israel. That doesn't mean that "appeasement does not work." It can work just fine when the stronger side has specific and achievable aims. Qaddafi, for example, successfully appeased us by giving up his nuclear program. The Sultan of Morocco successfully appeased us by giving into our demands that he appease the bandit chief Raisuli in return for the release of Ion Pericardis (which he did--successfully).
So of course appeasement can work. Sometimes it's even the best policy. It all depends on circumstances, those nasty things which make life so complicated and ideology so useless.
Posted by: ScottM on May 16, 2008 01:14 PMAlso, why would anyone agree to a negotiated settlement when they have nothing to lose? If Iran knows full well that a newly elected Obama would never punish them for any discretions, they would be crazy to agree with anything that limited their actions.
Posted by: RJK on May 16, 2008 01:26 PMKool-Aid
Bush Derangement Syndrome
Out of the main stream
Lefty
Wingnut
Rovian
Lockstep
Race Card
Empty Suit
Commie Fascist
Rino
War on Terror
Appeasement
And any analogy that likens ones opponent to Hitler and/or Nazi Germany.
So, the Sound of Music was based upon a pigment of Bruce Ramsey's imagination? Wow, oh wow!!
Posted by: swatter on May 16, 2008 01:30 PMOh of course, that's why Bush took the first shot by making the Hitler/Neville comments and having McCain and Lieberman sit around clarifying it.
He hasn't done his homework and his staff has weaknesses
So him saying he would talk to Iran is not doing his homework? Talking costs nothing, action/inaction on either side is the real issue. The US and international community is watching Iran very closely (satellites are nifty) to see what they do. This was not the case 65 years ago. The world is a much different place now.
It wasn't a "pigment", it was a Fig Newton.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on May 16, 2008 01:33 PMNice try with Godwin's Law, but wrong.
Godwin's Law is concerned with inappropriate comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis. The reasoning is that if inappropriate comparisons are allowed to proliferate, the true horror of the actions of Hitler the Nazis will pale through repetition, and appropriate comparisons will be met with a yawn.
In this case, since Iran's leader has called for the annihilation of the Jewish homeland, and Hitler wanted to annihilate the Jews, a comparison could hardly be more appropriate.
Posted by: ewaggin on May 16, 2008 01:39 PMWhat middle eastern leader hasn't done this? I seem to me the leaders of Hammas, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, etc. have all called for Israel to be wiped off the earth at one point or another.
"Would all of you folks who think talking to one's enemies will solve anything please list what significant world conflict was ever resolved by diplomatic means."
You want a list of all the major wars which never occurred?
Posted by: ScottM on May 16, 2008 01:52 PMOne point missed about the Ramsey piece is his assumption/assertion that the Palestinians "do have a just claim to territory," a view with debatable accuracy. It has often been argued that they are not a people of common ancestry, but rather are a diverse people bound by geography rather than common origin. I think most people would think "a just claim to territory" would be predicated on a clear historical association with and control of the given territory.
It may very well be politically expedient to grant the Palestinians political autonomy, but that is not the same as having a historical claim. The focus on Palestine is a dodge; a diversion from the main point.
It's true that the opposition that became the "Allies" did not have the interest of the Jews in mind as the reasons for the war. But clearly that was not Shark's reason for giving the link. He was refuting the "without bloodshed" assertion. Initial intentions the Nazis had toward the Jews were already in place, even if the ultimate "solution" had not been fleshed out. The allies' reasons had nothing to do with the aptness of the inclusion of the links.
And that again makes the point against Ramsey's argument...his presumption is that you can talk and reason with tyrants and hooligans as if you are negotiating with reasonable and trustworthy men. Plus he ignores the collective "mission statement(s)" of radical Islam, which rule out anything other than the supremacy of Islam and the eradication of Israel. Any "agreement" with them might do wonders for self-congratulatory egos of the Western negotiators, but symbolize to radical Islam merely an additional or incremental step toward an unchanging goal.
How foolish does one have to be to ignore the stated aims of those whom you wish to dialogue with? The implausibility of such an approach dooms the effort to failure before it begins. This is one place where the comparison may not be apt. The Allies might have been unclear what the endgame of the Nazis was, but radical Islam has clearly revealed their endgame.
Go ahead and talk. Give each party the opportunity to say their peace. But ultimately, unless Iran and fellow travelers change their end game, a lot of sand...somewhere, sometime, and somehow...will be turned to glass. Ask yourself...what are the odds that Iran, Syria, Iraq, et al have tried to harness nuclear capability for merely a deterrent? When have they shown evidence of restraint when tools/weapons are available to them? Perhaps in time radical Islam will negotiate in good faith. The most casual study of their history reveals the wisdom of reserving the stick while offering the carrot, along with denying them the stick.
It's going to take another catastrophic attack on American Soil before the left really wakes up.
All of it except Quebec.
Posted by: Hoystory on May 16, 2008 02:20 PMWhy, exactly, would we want to?
Posted by: scott158 on May 16, 2008 02:22 PMBecause they have oil?
Posted by: Hoystory on May 16, 2008 02:26 PMThere are no winners in a nuclear war. If you are suggesting that we use nuclear weapons to eliminate their potential threat, you are suggesting a solution that would make life very difficult for the remainder of humanity. The only value of nuclear weapons on either side is deterrence.
Think diplomacy, think negotiations, think humane, rational thoughts. Don't close the door to the best hope we have of solving the most difficult problems of our time.
Your response is a straw man, and you know it. I said nothing of the sort, and you know it.
Actually, radical Islam likely does consider the unilateral use of nuclear force to have a very valuable use...a one-size fits all eradication of Israel. Which you also know.
It's ethno-centrism or blind foolishness to presume that they would agree with your pecuniary views on whether or not it's worth it. And you know that as well.
Once again you've proven that being demonstrably disingenuous is one of your defining characteristics.
Further, "Don't close the door to the best hope we have of solving the most difficult problems of our time." Since I love to quote myself, what part of "Go ahead and talk. Give each party the opportunity to say their peace... Perhaps in time radical Islam will negotiate in good faith. The most casual study of their history reveals the wisdom of reserving the stick while offering the carrot, along with denying them the stick" are you having trouble with? If you want, could pass along links for dictionary and thesaurus helps if you'd like.
Always willing to help out the clueless...
As for Obama, given his ignorance of world history and his loathing of the very nation he wishes to lead, he will likely not only appease our enemies, he will sell out all of our national interests to them.
Posted by: Kato on May 16, 2008 02:47 PMWhew... I'm glad you didn't say that. It sort of sounded like you might be saying that when you mentioned all the sand getting turned to glass.
Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on May 16, 2008 02:49 PMSorry, but you can't have it both ways.
Posted by: scott158 on May 16, 2008 02:57 PM
Neither have I.
A careful reading of the Sudetenland article in Wikipedia shows the following:
1. There were some legitimate frustrations by ethnic Germans
2. Local leaders of the German community allied with Hitler to try to take advantage of these grievances.
3. Hitler had his own agenda as well. He was not interested in protecting Germans, he wanted to grow his empire and emasculate Czechoslovakia. And shortly after Germany annexed Sudetenland, he started persecuting Jewish people in that region.
An idiot like Ramsey could argue Hitler was reasonable. And therefore, the argument could go, anytime someone mentions Hitler, they better be in a situation where in their judgment the demands are NOT "reasonable" or "just claims." Otherwise they are just waving "the Hitler card".
however, what about the Czechs and Slovaks who lived there? Did their rights count?
What about the the rest of Czechoslovakia, who was rendered defenseless because the military fortifications they had to abandon?
And what about Jewish people who lived in the newly occupied land? 270K died as a result of the appeasement.
I think the point of appeasement analogies though is - it didn't work for Hilter. He had his agenda. He found excuses, perhaps which had a portion of legitimacy - but there was a lot of gray, and no interest at all in finding a gray answer for a gray problem.
This is another error of Ramsey: when he writes "to used these comparisons is to assert that it is morally questionable even to talk to the Palestinians" - he ignores the reality that there are always talks with the Palestinian and that the US has given help recently to Fatah in its struggle against Hamas.
What is the agenda of Iran? it is simple:to destroy Israel.
What is the agenda of the Palestinans? Well, it depends on which Palestinians you mean. If you mean Hamas, it is simple: they want to destroy Israel. Unless of course you believe Jimmy Carter. Uh huh.
What about Hezbollah? Simple. Destroy Israel.
Just as Hitler's legitimacy depended on conquest and destruction, so does the legitimacy of the Iranian government, and hamas, and Hezbollah. Just look back at the breakdown after the Palestinian Accords, the ones Arafat signed then reneged on.
Broad sweeps like Ramsey's make one wonder what history he has read. Does he understand complexity and grayness?
Look at the Wikipedia article about the Sudetenland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland
Some very interesting quotes:
In August, UK Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, sent Lord Runciman to Czechoslovakia in order to see if he could obtain a settlement between the Czechoslovak government and the Germans in the Sudetenland. His mission failed because, on Hitler's command, Sudeten German Party refused all conciliating proposals
....
Chamberlain met Hitler in Godesberg on September 22 to confirm the agreements. Hitler however, aiming at using the crisis as a pretext for war, now demanded not only the annexation of the Sudetenland but the immediate military occupation of the territories, giving the Czechoslovakian army no time to adapt their defence measures to the new borders. To achieve a solution, Italian prime minister Benito Mussolini suggested a conference of the major powers in Munich and on September 29, Hitler, Daladier and Chamberlain met and agreed to Mussolini's proposal (actually prepared by Hermann Göring) and signed the Munich Agreement accepting the immediate occupation of the Sudetenland. The Czechoslovak government, though not party to the talks, promised to abide by the agreement on September 30.
The Sudetenland was occupied by Germany between October 1 and October 10, 1938. This unification with the Third Reich was followed by the flight or expulsion of most of the region's Czech population to areas remaining within Czechoslovakia.
The remaining parts of Czechoslovakia were subsequently invaded and annexed by Germany in March 1939.
==
You could even see Hitler's claims he was protecting the Sudeten Germans as a way of expanding his anti semitic reign of terror. Another quote from Wikipedia:
Shortly after the annexation, the Jews living in the Sudetenland were widely persecuted. Only a few weeks after, the "Kristallnacht" occurred. As elsewhere in Germany, many synagogues were set on fire and many Jews were sent to concentration camps. In later years, the Nazis transported up to 300,000 Czech and Slovak Jews to concentration camps.[8] where 90% of them were killed or died. Jews and Czechs were not the only afflicted peoples; German Socialists, communists and pacifists were widely persecuted as well. Some of the German Socialist fled Sudetenland via Prague and London to other countries. The "Gleichschaltung" would damage permanently the community in the Sudetenland.
Posted by: Commentator on May 16, 2008 03:02 PMSome violence in each of these areas, but not outright war.
Why don't these folks just sit down and talk their way to peace if negotiations are so great? Well, I would guess that they don't see where they lose/hurt enough by not negotiating. Even if one side does carry a big stick like the US but the other side knows you won't use it, negotiating isn't going to get you anywhere. Obama's record, small as it is, and his campaign rhetoric isn't going to give him any creds at the bargaining table. He will/is viewed an easy mark.
Posted by: RJK on May 16, 2008 03:09 PMIn a bargaining situation where both sides value life equally, then use of force is lose lose. However, if your world view is shaped by visions of 1000 virgins waiting for you in paradise if you destroy your enemy, and 1001 waiting for you if you get destroyed as a martyr, then this isn't lose lose for the other side, it is win win.
I agree with the post above about Obama's naivitie. If he didn't know what his pastor's beliefs, eg, US govt caused Aids as a way to kill black people, etc, then he does he have the ability to discern what Hamas, Hezbollah, Ahmenidjab and others stand for?
On what will he base his decisions? The political wishes of Moveon? For that matter, has he ever ticked off his base?
Posted by: Commentator on May 16, 2008 03:19 PMHow is that "big stick" theory working for us? Is the terrorist threat any less than it was when we put Iraq, Iran and North Korea on an "axis of evil"? Is the threat of nuclear proliferation less that it was 7 years ago?
(Answer Key: It's not working; No; No)
Posted by: Splinter on May 16, 2008 03:20 PMDo you actually read the stuff you comment on?
Splinter...do you have people that you intend to vote for? I'm not all that excited about Bush. The presumptive Rep. nominee has me far less than excited. Obama and Clinton 3 are disasters waiting in the wings.
Rossi over the queen is an easy call, though.
Posted by: scott158 on May 16, 2008 03:21 PM
When is appeasement the right thing to do? Please enlighten us. Point out one time in history when appeasement of a bully ever resulted in them stopping.
Oh I don't know spilnter. Libya was convinced to give up it's nuclear weapons program, and Bush didn't even fire a shot. Bush invaded Iraq in Feb 2003. In December 2003 Libya decided to give up its nuclear program.
After Iraqi's had their first successful election in 2005, the Lebonese were inspired by the sight of liberty in Iraq and kicked out the Syrians. Thus the "Cedar Revolution" was born.
We saw how the Clinton era policy of appeasement to Norht Korea turned out. They said they wouldn't create nukes, but they did anyway. WOW, you mean North Korea lies?
As for the "Big Stick" policy, we know that Saddamn did have a nuclear weapons program in the early 90's. The IAEA was finally tipped off by Saddam's brother in law after they were preparing to declare there were none. The big stick must have apparently worked because when we went back there apparently weren't any WMD.
In WWII Chaimberlain tried the appeasement policy. There are still some burned out buildings in London that testify to the results of appeasement.
So yeah, the big stick is working fine.
Fat lot of good that did...Lybia Sours on US Ties. Bush promised the world, delivered nothing to Lybia.
"Col. Gadhafi now openly questions the wisdom of engaging the U.S., which teamed with the British to bring Libya in from the cold."
Time and again I've asked members of the left to explain the party line in light of the stated goals of the Islamic radicals. Once in a while one will admit the cognitive dissonance, but I've never heard one come close to a reasonable explanation. Nor to they seem to feel it appropriate to try.
--Winston Churchill, House of Commons, 5 October 1938
Really? Let's ask Japan.
Posted by: Dave on May 16, 2008 06:48 PMGosh, with those magical satellites (presumably these are the satellites that can see underground?) I'm surprised that George W. Bush was able to single-handedly hoodwink the entire world into believing Saddam had WMD.
Posted by: Canto on May 16, 2008 08:33 PMThe way in which the nuclear bomb was used in WWII and in the future is reserved only for situations like then where many lives can be saved, even though a goodly number were lost. If not, I would agree with #57.
Posted by: KS on May 16, 2008 10:31 PMYou are correct Splinter he does try to look at both sides, kind of like when he has repeatedly said that he would talk to Iran without conditions and now he is saying he would not talk to terroirsts period (Remember Iran is the largest state spomsor of terrorism), or how about when Sen Obama said that he colud not condemn Jimmy Carter for talking to Hamas; yet days after Jimmy Carter talked to Hamas Sen. Obama came out condeming Jimmy Carter for talking to Hamas. With this kind of looking at issues from both sides who needs pandering?
Cato said, "Col. Gadhafi now openly questions the wisdom of engaging the U.S., which teamed with the British to bring Libya in from the cold."
So you are saying that you now agree that talking with governments that have ties to terrorism does not work.
George Bush had plenty of company in believing Saddam had WMD. Quotations from Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and others have been posted on this site as proof George Bush was not alone in his assessment of intelligence. All the above not only believed WMD's existed, but also demanded swift military action. Instead we let the UN idiots play their silly games, offering Saddam ample opportunity to dispose of his weapons or ship them to Syria.
Posted by: Saltherring on May 17, 2008 07:30 AM
Has Libya reconstituted their nuclear program? NO they have not. Case closed.
Posted by: pbj on May 17, 2008 09:38 AMNow, tell me again, lefties, what's the point of negotiations?
Posted by: Obi-Wan on May 17, 2008 09:43 AMI think this is what you are looking for:
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"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 | Source
"[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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a 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 th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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. 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 | Source
"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 | Source
If you're too stupid to figure that out, I can't help you.
Posted by: Saltherring on May 17, 2008 09:44 AMAhmadinejad has stated they want us dead... good luck talking to a guy that scorns your existance.