AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
trevster2k said:This whole discussion of quotes is ridiculous.
Is it not important know what our leaders were saying from 1998-2003? Especially since their words are what stoked the "war fever?"
trevster2k said:This whole discussion of quotes is ridiculous.
trevster2k said:climate in America during that time was, you are with us or against us.
"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
September 13, 2001
AEON said:
You forgot this part of the article:
AEON said:
Is it not important know what our leaders were saying from 1998-2003? Especially since their words are what stoked the "war fever?"
BonoVoxSupastar said:
When was war ever mentioned before Bush?
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
Diemen said:Talking about keeping on top of Saddam is a far cry from actually launching a preemptive attack against him.
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."
Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002
"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."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
During a Democratic Primary Debate at the University of South Carolina
May 3, 2003
BonoVoxSupastar said:This is why I said read before you post, I'll say it again:
When was W-A-R ever mentioned before Bush?
BonoVoxSupastar said:This is why I said read before you post, I'll say it again:
When was W-A-R ever mentioned before Bush?
Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998:
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
The two have NOTHING to do with each other!!! So no we don't all understand that, the misinformed "understand" that.AEON said:
I think we all understand that 9/11 was part of the justification for the war (we can longer stand by and wait to be attacked).
No, it's not clear. Your hawk attitude makes that clear to you, but not everyone else.AEON said:
It is clear from these quotes that it didn't matter who was president, we were going to war with Iraq.
AEON said:
This comes close:
BonoVoxSupastar said:No, it's not clear. Your hawk attitude makes that clear to you, but not everyone else.
More twisting. Were they against the war? No, but how many of them were willing to jump into one until Bush came along? Yes I think the unwillingness of this administration to work with the UN and the push for a pre-emptive strike changed everything... for the worse.AEON said:
Are you saying that these people I have quoted were against the war in 2002/3? That President Clinton, Pelosi, and the others were purposely lying to us in 1998 about Iraq and the threat of WMD?
AEON said:
I may have been a hawk - but I was no more a hawk than these Democrats.
phillyfan26 said:AEON, it's STILL not calling for anything more than a full UN investigation. No one said "Defy the UN, ignore the UN, doubt the UN." These quotes are just saying, "Saddam most likely has the weapons, we need to stop him." You're stretching it.
The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.
"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...
maycocksean said:Be sure to quote AEON in later 2008 election threads when he suggests that the dems will be weak on national security. . .
AEON said:
Are you referring to the quotes from 1998 or the batch from 2002 and 2003? The quotes from 2002/3 a very supportive of the invasion. I believe several of those quotes were post invasion, stating that the invasion was the "right thing to do."
Here is a part of that quote from Edwards in September 2002, a full NINE months before the invasion:
I honestly do not think it mattered if Gore or Bush were president. After 9/11 the people of this country demanded that we were protected. Senators like Hillary Clinton were linking Iraq to WMD and al-Qaeda.
It is the leadership of both parties that sent our men and women into battle, leaving Iraq without a government, without protection, and without an infrastructure. To leave the Iraqis like sheep for the slaughter after an invasion is morally reprehensible.
If you thought the invasion itself was morally reprehensible - you must blame everyone from President Clinton for perpetuating the myth of WMD to Bush for acting on that compiled evidence to al-Queda for putting America on the offensive to Congress (that means Republics and AND Democrats) for stirring up the American people in preparation for an invasion and then giving the troops the green light.
AEON said:
after War Fever subsides
This can be debated, but that's been covered here way too much already.phillyfan26 said:
That Edwards quote calls for an international effort, which is exactly what Bush didn't do.
phillyfan26 said:I'm not blaming them for thinking al-Qaeda could have been involved with Hussein. I AM blaming them for not giving enough time to get facts.
Here's an interesting point: All of the pro-War people are now talking about how this needs so much time. But then why were they in such a rush with the UN? Isn't it important for that to get time, to make sure that we aren't invading a country with no al-Qaeda connections or WMDs?
AEON said:This can be debated, but that's been covered here way too much already.
I agree with you. However, it is apparent that after 9-11, leaders of both parties didn't think we could afford to wait.
anitram said:
The difference between us is that I think that would generally be a good thing.
Many things you've said here scare the shit out of me. And go a long way to explaining why most of the rest of the world gets an ugly, uneasy feeling in the pit of their stomach whereas your country is concerned.
AEON said:My only fear is that after War Fever subsides
Sorry, I think your thinking of the number that supports congress.Barely 12% of the population still supports this war
A_Wanderer said:I don't see why President Al Gore wouldn't have.
Sorry, I was just confused by all those years where they were supporting air strikes, sanctions and thousands of sorties based on the facts that Iraq had failed to disarm and it had made links with Al Qaeda. Those policies were justified then on the basis of what they intelligence community was saying; I don't see how that line of thinking within a Gore administration would have changed after September 11.Infinitum98 said:
He absolutely wouldn't have sent in troops KNOWING that Iraq had no WMD's and KNOWING that Iraq had no connection with al-Qaeda or 9/11. Bush sent in the troops while knowing these facts.