http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/

Aww we didnt find any

__________________
www.contraweb.tk
.: Digital Activism for the New Millenium :.

Where's Britogal? She'll love this.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

"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 times since 1983." S
- 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, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 a 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

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

You are missing one EXTEREMELY important point oout of all of that.

NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE TOOK US TO WAR BASED ON THOSE QUOTES.

Each of them would have waited for the UN inspectors to finish their jobs. Each of them would have waited for the help of the UN. None of them would have taken us to war without a clear exit strategy

Do you not get it? BUSH TOOK THE US TO WAR UNDER FALSE PRETENSES Not Kerry, Not Clinton, Not Albright.

Quit Bashing Kerry for something BUSH did - this spin is getting OLD

__________________
Truth is by nature self-evident, as soon as you remove the cobwebs of ignorance that surround it, it shines clear. Gandhi

All of those quotes are PRIOR to inspectors being allowed back into the country.

How about the quotes where Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice say that Saddam is contained.

http://www.bi30archive.org/extras/Po..._no_threat.asx

How about the quotes from Hans Blix saying he was 2 months from being able to certify that Saddam had no WoMD.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1083862.htm

Or how about the plain quote from President Bush himself when he saw the evidence first hand on Iraq.

""I don't think this quite -- it's not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from.... I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD, and this is the best we've got?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

And has been said, Nobody else killed tens of thousands of people over their suspicions. Suspisions that obviously were not beyond a shadow of a doubt. Suspicions that seem like they were based on coached defectors and other non credible sources and suspicions that would not even be strong enough to hold up in a US court for a single murder conviction. But Bush decided to destroy the credibility of the US over, Bush decided to kill over a thousand Americans over and cripple thousands more, Bush decided to kill thousands of innocent woman and children over.

Now it is FACT THAT HE LIED TO START A WAR.

Lies are when you don't tell the truth, intentional or not. When the President starts a war and makes claims.. they better be true, not lies.

If The President starts a war, kills tens of thousands of people, and the claims justifying war are lies. He should not be re-elected. It is as simple as that.

[quote="PoliticallyIncorrect";p="74449"]You are missing one EXTEREMELY important point oout of all of that.

NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE TOOK US TO WAR BASED ON THOSE QUOTES.

Each of them would have waited until "heil froze over." Because that's exactly what they had been doing. They spent years talking tough about how much of a danger Saddam was...and yet never did anything about it. They had said there would be no compromise with Saddam....and yet Clinton let Saddam out of the inspections. And his administration never did anything about starting it back. And hear this: the UN was never going to help....they were benefitting from the illicit deals they were doing with Saddam....and they didn't care that he was a threat to the world. They didn't care about his brutality. Just like they don't care about the brutality and genocide going on in Sudan. Just like they don't care about the hundreds of Israeli's that get blown to bits each month. But hey, they really, really, really are concerned about those 68 Palestinians that recently got killed. So you are correct: the Democrats were all talk and no "do" when it came to Saddam.

No, he did not. It was always about 3 reasons....not just one. Go back and review the speeches by both him and Powell to the UN. And "false pretenses" implies that someone knows the information is not correct. That's not the case here. Not only did Pres. Bush believe there were stockpiles of wmd's. So did everyone else.....including the UN and including the last administration.


But Kerry said he would might well have gone to war too. You DO understand, don't you....that the Weapons Inspectors were NEVER going to know. They were NEVER going to be allowed into all the places and they were NEVER going to have Saddam's cooperation. So......all these guys who say they would have waited.....have never stated how long they would have waited? Another 12 years? Maybe 50 years this time? Come on. Enough is enough. They all said in the past.....each and every one of these guys that the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein. But you'd never know it....based on the stuff they say now.

When Kerry complains about the "way" Bush did it.....he's talking about timing, and details. And that's it. Well.....newsflash: every president is different. And each president would have done things a little differently. Kerry is like a Monday morning quarterback.......who at Friday night's game talked about how bad things were, but wasn't a leader that night, didn't have any of the answers until AFTER the game was over and he time to reflect on it. Hindsight is 20/20.

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

President Bush would not have had the open mind to consider the possibility that Saddam did not have weapons. Innocent until proven guilty? Apparently that doesn't apply to Saddam. We had no proof that Saddam had WMDs. We assumed he had WMDs. And you know what they say about assuming. It makes an ASSume OUT OF U AND ME.

The proof. That's what was missing. A responsible president would have gotten proof that there were in fact WMDs in Iraq. President Bush did not.
We assumed Saddam's guilt because we were predisposed to believe it. That is not a viable reason to go to war.

And aren't we forgetting President Bush's first big mistake? Not letting the inspectors finish the job. You claim that Saddam would never have cooperated with inspectors. HE WAS COOPERATING! Remember? He agreed to full unrestricted access for the inspectors. The inspectors had the freedom to search every last nook and cranny of Iraq if they wanted to. What would have happened? They would have searched Iraq thoroughly for weapons, found none, and concluded that, as we know now, the WMDs did not exist.

BUT NO! Bushie wanted to invade Iraq. He cut short the inspections, and with his pathetic sad puppy face went on TV and proclaimed that Saddam had 5 days to turn over WMDs or be invaded.

Saddam was in quite a fix. He was (*)(*)(*)(*)ed no matter what he did because:
A. He couldn't turn over weapons even if he wanted to, because he never had them.
B. Since he couldn't convince Bushie that there were no WMDs, even though it was the truth, invasion was inevitable.
C. He could bluff and say that he has WMDs aimed at or planted in America, but of course, that would just guarantee that he'd get vaporized when a balllistic missile fell on his head.

Whatever was a megolomaniac dictator to do? (Which shows why this proffesion doesn't pay off. When you lie to people too many times, they're not likely to believe you when you're telling the truth.)

So you really can't blame this war on Saddam. He might have been evil and crazy, but not for provoking this war. The sole blame rests solely on our president's shoulders, as he was the one too hard-headed to consider the possibility that Saddam did not have WMDs.

"Intentional or not" I believe the word intentional certainly covers the concept of intent.

So in other words, say a policeman kills your kid. He says that even though another police officer was frisking him at the time, he couldn't wait because he thought he might have a gun, someone told him so. So he shoots him dead. Then he looks at the body and sees no gun. I guess that would be OK because he had good intent. No, there is a standard called "PROOF" that must be upheld. Bush did not have it. You need it before declaring war.