Thursday, May 24, 2007

Thats what I thought, your a gutless turd

You want people running the country who say whatever they think is the most popular at the time...take the easiest way out...enact policies and say things that help our enemies...

Just a reminder about what your favorite liberals thought a few years ago:


"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

FLASHBACK: Edwards [2001]: 'We will be united with the president throughout this war on terrorism'...

30 comments:

PCD said...

Game,

You know you are hitting party hacks like Jim and Jay below the belt. Liberal Democrats being held to what they say?? That's sheer heresy. How 1984 of you.

Sarcasm off.

jhbowden said...

Oh, oh, but the Democrats were lied to by Bush --- when he was Governor of Texas!!!

I can't stand socialist doublethinkers.

Jay Bullock said...

With the exception of the Edwards quote at the end (more on that in a moment), all of these are from people calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein. That happened, by my calendar, four years ago. All these people got exactly what they wanted--the removal of Saddam from power. What's your point?

About the Edwards quote on terrorism: A lot of people were with Bush when he went into Afghanistan after the terrorists and their enablers--including me. But I'd be insane--and John Edwards would be insane--to look at what's happened in the last five years and think the "war on terror" or whatever you want to call it was being won, being managed well at all.

The Game said...

pcd, you got the quote???
Nice

jhbowden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jhbowden said...

Jay --

Watch the video Game linked. Edwards tells O'Reilly in Oct 2001 he would support Bush if decided to clean house in Syria, Iran, Iraq and so forth. Then Edwards says that the Democrats and Republicans would be always be united, and they wouldn't give Bush a hard time if the war is expanded.

And then vigorous war supporters like Edwards and Clinton have the nerve to say Bush lied to them after the polls change. Absolutely disgusting.

PCD said...

Game,

Sorry, being a bit dense this morning. What quote?

I made a reference to 1984, George Orwell's book where the government alters history to suit the current propaganda. Looks like Orwell was writing about the Democrat party.

The Game said...

oh...my headline for this story was from a movie made around 1984...I get your reference now...

Realism said...

Some morons are STILL claiming that Iraq had WMD's.

PCD said...

Some trolls, like Phillip, are just looking for a one sided fight.

Realism said...

And some, like you, prefer to join the battle of wits unarmed

Realism said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jay Bullock said...

I suppose now would be a bad time to bring up all those GW Bush quotes ca. 1999 about how keeping our troops in harm's way overseas doing "democracy building" was a bad idea?

Or all those quotes from Republicans demanding Clinton bring home troops from Bosnia or Somalia? Or name the Republicans who tried "defunding" the troops throughout the Clinton years?

jhbowden said...

jay--

I can forgive people from both parties for not anticipating 911. I cannot forgive people for not learning from it.

Realism said...

What does that have to do with Saddam and/or WMD?

jhbowden said...

philip--

We're in a war to clean house in the Middle East, the same war the Senator Edwards so vigorously supported above. I don't have to make my case explicit about Iraq's WMD threat-- the dozen or so *Democrats* like Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Sandy Burglar and so forth have done that for me as Game quoted above.

While one can the debate the propriety of entering Iraq at time we did-- the fact that his government posed a weapons threat in the longterm was never in doubt-- hell, Israel had to take out their nuclear facility in Osirak in 1981 for obvious reasons.

What is less reported in the media is that Saddam Hussein trained over 8,000 terrorists at Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak, many of which belonged to groups with close ties to al-Queda like Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army.

In case you don't know, Islamic Supremacists are fighting from Thailand to Israel, from Kashmir to Nigeria. A vote not to fight back will not make them lay down their arms.

Realism said...

A vote not to fight back will not make them lay down their arms.


What, in your opinion, will?

The Game said...

glenn beck kicks some serious ass and I have talked to him a few times...I bet he will not mind the linkn I put in the story for him did not come up for some reason...
And I have done this before...used Dem's own words against them...and listen to the crickets

Realism said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Realism said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
jhbowden said...

philip--

"What, in your opinion, will?"

I've outlined this before.

The Democratic strategy to stop Islamic Supremacists is to give the Hirohitos, Mussolinis, and Hitlers of our time talk, diplomacy, and therapy. They think if we put the Gitmo terrorists back into circulation, repeal the Patriot Act, and let the Mullahs have the bomb, terrorists will like us, and then we can be partners in peace.

The democrats don't understand the goals of our enemy, which include bringing back the caliphate, imposing sharia everywhere, and exterminating the Jew.

The Republican strategy is like the Cold War strategy of containment-- support democracy when we can, and friendly autocrats when we cannot. The difference is that we need to be on offense, since mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent to those with mass suicide and martyrdom on the brain.

Jim said...

Jason, I believe you falsely state the Republic strategy.

The Clinton strategy for Iraq was containment. The Republic strategy is to invade and occupy, without considering consequences first so as not to find themselves in an impossible situation and blame the troops for not being able to get themselves out of the mess.

The Game said...

philip is just swearing and being an idiot...but to make him look more like as idiot...lets make him look like the mental moron he is:

Okay, lets do that...
Lets look at the TWO quotes that were listed (and not cited) against my 18 quotes.

If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

First of all we did not go it alone. Second, I'm glad to see it pointed out once again that Democrats would rather have Saddam in power. Liberals have said that over and over, glad to see it pointed out again. Third, we have the wussy liberal argument that if we take out Saddam and bring Democracy to Iraq, terrorist will be mad at us and make more terrorist...so we better be nice to them, sing songs and dance and play...

We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation

Again, we did not go it alone, and the UN has shown it can not really do anything but spend money and give Saddam millions of dollars.

Man, those were AWESOME arguments. The EIGHTEEN quotes showing the spineless and blow with the wind manner that Dem's live is completely refuted....GREAT JOB.

Libs, you can't win an argument with facts, okay. Stop trying and run around with your emotional rants...

jhbowden said...

"an, those were AWESOME arguments. The EIGHTEEN quotes showing the spineless and blow with the wind manner that Dem's live is completely refuted....GREAT JOB."

LOL! These people are a complete joke!

jhbowden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jhbowden said...

Jim--

The Democratic congress voted for the surge this year, and then voted to extend the war in Iraq this year. This is just like 2002, when politicians like Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, Dodd, Biden, Schumer, and Reid voted for the ambiguously named "Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."

How are you guys ever going to surrender to al-Queda, if you keep surrendering to us in the GOP? With the audacity of hope, someday, you may get your wish. LOL!

Jim said...

You delete his comments and then wonder where he went?

The Game said...

never done that before...tells you how bad they were...

Jim said...

I saw them before you removed them. I personally thought the language was over the top. On the other hand, it seems like the post just prior to the deleted ones sort of set the tone, fired the first salvo if you will.

The Game said...

point taken...I think there has only been one other time I deleted a post...but anyway...we are off topic AGAIN