Political quotes - Sportbike Forum: Sportbike Motorcycle Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 6 (permalink) Old 04-14-2004, 12:03 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sportbike World
Posts: 3,052
Political quotes

It is amazing how the facts are unimportant to so many, and how soon they forget!

=============================================

"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 time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998

"[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, 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 mandated 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 weap ons 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 EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY!

SQUID=Stupidly Quick, Underdressed, & Imminently Dead

Katie has a nice "spice rack".

If you can read this, thank a teacher....If you're reading this in English, thank a Veteran.
monkey is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 6 (permalink) Old 04-14-2004, 01:52 PM
Dad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Pittsburgh Pa
Posts: 4,230
The majority of those democrats were against going to war without the UN. That source of yours surely has those quotes, too. I fit that category. The reason they felt that way is being proven out in the developments in Iraq.

It was GW who said, "you're either with us, or against us", to our long term allies. Great show of leadership and "I'm a uniter, not a divider" there, George. That was the point in the progression that any trust or respect for GW that I had was completely shattered. I could not, and still can't, believe that our president acted as he did in those months and on the public stage. That is the basis for my feelings that he is the stupidest SOB I've seen in power... EVER. His domestic policy, or lack thereof, further underscores it for me. Brazen money grabs for the wealthiest Americans, tax cuts during a war, etc. etc. etc.

Many of the quotes are extracted from the time when the US was trying to encourage the UN to get serious about the inspections, which finally happened. Prior to that, the case for WMD was quite strong and was, more importantly, unclear. That would apply to most quotes prior to 2000. The information gathered and summarized by the UN inspections leader Hans Blix sheds a lot of light on that era for those interested.

See ya George!

Keeping the "Hap" in "Happy Holidays"!

Regime change begins at home.

Blind patriotism is worse than no patriotism.
Dad is offline  
post #3 of 6 (permalink) Old 04-14-2004, 02:15 PM
S370HSSV 0773H
 
spicersh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Terrible Hole, IN
Posts: 7,437
Send a message via Yahoo to spicersh
Dad:

12 of the 19 quotes are post-2000....

The post pointed out that the speakers are now calling Bush a liar, which you didn't even try to respond to, you go immediately into his tax cuts and his leadership abilities.

I'll have to look around to find where I saw this, but it dealt with the tax cuts you seem so powerfully against. It basically went deeper than the "tax cuts for people who make $200,000 or more are evil" and went on to show that that group was paying somewhere in the 30's as a percentage of their tax. It's been a few years since I filled out my taxes (thanks hon!) but if memory serves I pay somewhere in the 20's.....I think anyway. This argument comes down to whether or not you believe that the wealthier you are the more you should pay percentage wise, or if you believe more in a flat tax system where we all pay the same percentage. I'll not try to get into an argument about this as I am quite honestly not well informed enough to do so. All I point out is that the wealthier are paying an enormous amount of taxes, so it's not like Bush is doing away with their taxes altogether as many people try to make it sound.

As far as his leadership....I feel after 9/11 people looked to him to step up and take charge, and that he did. I'll not throw a blanket defense over everything he has said or done as I don't agree with all of it. I do think he did the best he could and overall did a good job of it, leaving some things to be desired.

Oh well....here we go again....

SportbikeWorld Supermoderator

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
spicersh is offline  
 
post #4 of 6 (permalink) Old 04-14-2004, 02:43 PM
Dad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Pittsburgh Pa
Posts: 4,230
Quote:
Originally posted by spicersh
Dad:

12 of the 19 quotes are post-2000....

The post pointed out that the speakers are now calling Bush a liar, which you didn't even try to respond to, you go immediately into his tax cuts and his leadership abilities.
I didn't want to repeat myself but here's the last post I made in the "other thread". It fits the topic so well I just copied it in its entirety. As far as changing the topic, it's really all the same. It's just that his idiocy is multi-faceted.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dad
It's pretty well accepted that before 2000, the dates on a number of those quotes, he did have some WMD. If you believe, as that quote from Kennedy would suggest, that Kennedy was a supporter of going to war without the UN, then you need to look at his many statements on the subject. It's also pretty broadly accepted that while many had suspicions, Blix among them, very few were sure, with a notable exception being GW's administration. And Tony Blair makes two. That's why the UN had sanctions in place for over a decade, and inspectors in Iraq searching the facts. I'm fully aware of the obstinance and gamesmanship of Saddam and am equally aware that Iraq was going nowhere with what they might have had. Those facts or opinions are the result of the countless hours I invested in following the topic as it unfolded. I couldn't begin to relay everything I learned but my summary is from a BROAD range of views and sources. I'm completely comfortable with it.

I wasn't absolutely sure he DIDN'T have anything either and am actually quite surprised that virtually nothing showed up, not even a facility that was at least trying but unable to produce, from the inability to get the necessary material and equipment because sanctions had done their job. I still figured there'd be some broken down facilities with some stockpiles of something, even if not deliverable.

It's also worth remembering that one of the main sources of information that the Congress had to base their decision on WAS the claims coming from the administration. When you look at the conviction with which many of the claims were made by the administration's team, the pressure on Congress was tremendous. They were also under political pressure from their constituents whose source of information was.... yup, the administration. That is why many in the Congress are supporting the investigations that are going on right now. There is sufficient evidence emerging that the case was cooked, enough to warrant inquiries, and the inquiries are yet to prove otherwise. Many of them in Congress feel duped, too. Not just on Iraq but on the Drug Bill as well. Many of those upset with the drug bill are republicans and it's a fact it wouldn't have passed if the administration hadn't held back the budget figures they had in their hands BEFORE the vote, by strong arming Thomas, the figures guru, by threatening his government career, and lieing bare faced to Congress about the cost. It's an administration theme to someone who has followed them.

I stand FIRMLY behind the view that we screwed up BIG TIME in advancing the military option in the fashion we did. I NEVER said it might not be necessary at some point and every post I make with that statement ends with ...... ,yet. I've posted most of my justifications and thoughts on this and have little to add. For anybody who doesn't remember, go back and have a read.

It's also true that it's too late to undo and we will be dealing with the actions taken for a long time. The only point in reviewing this is to get some sense of how GW operated in the past, how he thinks, and use that as an indicator of how he might make the next crucial decision. For that reason it's important and I'm comfortable that anybody who really takes the time to understand it all and continues to follow the current investigations as they unfold, will in sufficient majority see an approximation of the same thing I have. If not, so be it.
Quote:
Originally posted by spicersh
As far as his leadership....I feel after 9/11 people looked to him to step up and take charge, and that he did...
And has proven why you shouldn't elect a president who is without knowledge on anything of any relative importance, a condition that was blatantly evident to me during the campaign. All that the rest of this has proven to me is that my judgement was correct, although he HAS exceeded my expectations as to the width and breadth of his stupidity. I truly expect and have great hope that his uniting talents have sufficiently united the country to see him gone next go around. That is my sincerely and carefully thought out opinion.

Keeping the "Hap" in "Happy Holidays"!

Regime change begins at home.

Blind patriotism is worse than no patriotism.
Dad is offline  
post #5 of 6 (permalink) Old 04-14-2004, 02:57 PM
S370HSSV 0773H
 
spicersh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Terrible Hole, IN
Posts: 7,437
Send a message via Yahoo to spicersh
I still fail to see how Bush is a liar, when he went on the information everyone believed at the time. As for him having proof to the contrary and still charging in with his big hard-on for Saddam, we'll never know as I doubt we'll ever have access to everything he saw.

On another tangent, why is it ok for everyone to call Bush "stupid?" I seem to remember a thread not that long ago where someone criticized Kennedy as being a "damn drunk" and you really let them have it, saying that that was unfair and unacceptable in light of his history. You then proceeded to post numerous excuses that allowed Kennedy's behavior. Whether he deserves to be or not, I still think he's a damn drunk. A damn drunk is a damn drunk, no matter the root cause of it. However, using your own defense tactic to show Bush is not "stupid", simply look at his education background. I don't see how anyone can honestly say he is stupid, based on his prior experiences. So he's not a great speaker, which makes him sound funny sometimes, but many people aren't good public speakers. Does that mean he is a bad leader? A very significant number of people in this country think he is doing a good job....enough, IMO, to put him back in for another 4. It should be an interesting November. I'm torn as to whether or not it will be close or an absolute blowout. Obviously that can depend on what happens up until then though, so we'll see.

Any thoughts on the tax issues I brought up, or are you researching? Knowing you I am sure you won't let it go unaddressed (and please realize I mean that as a compliment, not an insult).

SportbikeWorld Supermoderator

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
spicersh is offline  
post #6 of 6 (permalink) Old 04-14-2004, 05:41 PM
Dad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Pittsburgh Pa
Posts: 4,230
Quote:
Originally posted by spicersh
I still fail to see how Bush is a liar, when he went on the information everyone believed at the time. As for him having proof to the contrary and still charging in with his big hard-on for Saddam, we'll never know as I doubt we'll ever have access to everything he saw.

On another tangent, why is it ok for everyone to call Bush "stupid?" I seem to remember a thread not that long ago where someone criticized Kennedy as being a "damn drunk" and you really let them have it, saying that that was unfair and unacceptable in light of his history. You then proceeded to post numerous excuses that allowed Kennedy's behavior. Whether he deserves to be or not, I still think he's a damn drunk. A damn drunk is a damn drunk, no matter the root cause of it. However, using your own defense tactic to show Bush is not "stupid", simply look at his education background. I don't see how anyone can honestly say he is stupid, based on his prior experiences. So he's not a great speaker, which makes him sound funny sometimes, but many people aren't good public speakers. Does that mean he is a bad leader? A very significant number of people in this country think he is doing a good job....enough, IMO, to put him back in for another 4. It should be an interesting November. I'm torn as to whether or not it will be close or an absolute blowout. Obviously that can depend on what happens up until then though, so we'll see.

Any thoughts on the tax issues I brought up, or are you researching? Knowing you I am sure you won't let it go unaddressed (and please realize I mean that as a compliment, not an insult).
I call him stupid because from anything I've seen of him, he is. Kennedy, on the other hand, in spite of any and all of his problems, is not stupid. When I made that case about Kennedy and other times, I've sighted a number of republicans who I don't find to be stupid even though I don't agree with most of them. That list could include O'Neill, McCain, sometimes Dole, and even Nixon. Bush senior was even adequate in foreign policy but attrocious at domestic. It doesn't include Reagan, Gingrich, or Armey. It sure as hell doesn't include DeLay, a diabolical individual who is lower than a snake, or Lott. Lott wishes he could be like DeLay but doesn't have the skills.

I actually felt sorry for GW last night when he was asked why he and Cheney will be testifieing together for the 9-11 commision. He tried to skirt it first and then when the questioner wouldn't take that, he refused to answer the question, and it was painful to watch. The guy is simply in over his head. The rest of last night's press conference was another hour of the same. No information and cheerleading his dogma.

As far as the taxes? They make more than enough, made it in no small thanks to our country's opportunities, and should put their patriotic money where there patriotic mouths are, not take a tax cut while the financial health of the country is in the toilet and their fearless leader has taken us to war. Let that be its own topic because it's way more involved than just income tax rates. The regressive taxes throughout our system still have the poorest people on through the middle class contributing the largest percentage of their income to taxes. To give you a bench mark shot from the hip on the single issue of income taxes, I'll start to sympathize when they're over 50% after the first million. You do realize, they are at the exact same rate as everyone else at each increment along the way, right? The higher percentages only kick up as you move up the brackets and only on that money over and above.

30, 40, or even 50 percent on the very highest end of a pretty extravagent income, to support the system, country, and infrastructure that afforded you that income, is not unreasonable in my sense of right and fair play. I see that as plain as the nose on my face.

Keeping the "Hap" in "Happy Holidays"!

Regime change begins at home.

Blind patriotism is worse than no patriotism.
Dad is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Sportbike Forum: Sportbike Motorcycle Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome