Where Bush Got His Marching Orders


PDA






Desertdog
August 8, 2004, 02:18 AM
Received this in my email this evening and the bottom line says pass it on. Dd

Looks like some people have very poor memories...the media included. They are not challenging this double talk...

Where Bush Got His Marching Orders


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

"We 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 mandate 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 weapon 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 THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !

Send this to everybody you know. The networks won't do it It's up to us to get the word out.

If you enjoyed reading about "Where Bush Got His Marching Orders" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
reagansquad
August 8, 2004, 02:30 AM
"(Saddam) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
Colon Powell
Feb 2001

"We are able to keep it from him (Saddam), his military forces have not been rebuilt."
Condeleeza Rice
July 2001

They are both liars in the pocket of big business and special interest groups. Vote Nader.

2nd Amendment
August 8, 2004, 03:25 AM
Hmmm, I suppose voting Nader wouldn't be *that* bad. It's that many fewer votes to Kerry, probably, and thus might help keep Bush in office. Works for me.

Moparmike
August 8, 2004, 06:36 AM
Voting Nader will help if your vote was beholden to Kerry in the first place. But it will do no good if you like Bush.



That said, there is a 90% chance that I will be voting for Badnarik. :)

Double Naught Spy
August 8, 2004, 08:27 AM
Go to www.snopes.com and can search for the segment on Bush's marching orders. The information is sort of true, but like so many things in politics, even your own people lie and fudge to you. Just about all of the quotes are NOT real quotes. The are paraphrases. The paraphrases are often taken out of context and in a few of the cases, the stand alone phrases have a different meaning (that looks pro Bush) than they have when in context.

In other words, propaganda.

JohnBT
August 8, 2004, 09:56 AM
Colon Powell? :scrutiny:

John

MuzzleBlast
August 8, 2004, 10:14 AM
That said, there is a 90% chance that I will be voting for Badnarik. Reckon he is going to be on the ballot here?

rick_reno
August 8, 2004, 12:20 PM
That said, there is a 90% chance that I will be voting for Badnarik.

Me too. We've got a "Republican" that clearly isn't, and a Democrat that is...well...a Democrat. Easy choice for me - vote Libertarian.

Akurat
August 8, 2004, 05:18 PM
Oh yea thanks! That'll help the country a whole lot :rolleyes:

Moparmike
August 8, 2004, 09:44 PM
What are you talking about Akurat? Voting for Badnarik? The only people that are voting for him are the ones that actually want to help the country, instead of those that are merely trying to keep a debatably "lesser evil" in office.* Given the choice of "Horrible," "Bad/Neutral," and "Positively wonderful," I think I will chose the latter. YMMV.


Muzzleblast, I certainly hope so. But I have no information either way.




*As in people are debating about it. Personally, he is the "lesser evil."

mountainclmbr
August 8, 2004, 11:51 PM
I would consider myself "working class" and a gun owner. The Communists (here they are "progressive" Democrats) always rounded up my kind "gun owners and freedom lovers" and made us dissappear in mass graves. Wealthy people were tortured to reveal the location of their accounts before being killed. The compassion in all of this is just beyond me.

Lennin preached "jobs, bread and peace", but he delivered "gulags, mass murder and ideals of global domination". Handing over control of my life to that elitist Kerry promises no less. Kerry: redistribute your wealth FIRST!!!

R.H. Lee
August 8, 2004, 11:56 PM
They are both liars in the pocket of big business and special interest groups. Vote Nader.

By all means, you DemocRATS out there want to defeat the EEEEVILLL Corporatists. Vote Nader! Ensure a Bush Victory.

Thank you. ;)

reagansquad
August 9, 2004, 02:06 AM
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa... I am NOT a Democrat!!!! I don't want anything to do with those neo-liberal weenies. But can you name 10 issues that the dems and republicans disagree on? 20? I can name over 30 that the AGREE on, probably more. Similar backers, similar platforms. Try comparing the dem and republican platforms to that of any 3rd political party and see what the differences are.

That doesn't leave a fella a lot of choices. I'm no neo-nazi, so the constitution party is out. I'd vote libertarian, but I think it terribly naive that total pullback of government intervention in all walks of life would result in anything buy turn of the century, industrial revolution style robber barons. They have the money, they'd have the power (i.e. private toll roads, etc)... Imagine if EVERYTHING that is under public ownership was instead under private ownership! Then how much fun would it be when a company like AOL-Time-Warner, which owns something like 80% of all media operation (and in the event of a libertarian takeover of the US political system, AOL-T-W would be one of the many companies in a mad rush to buy up everything.), decided that they wanted to buy all the bridges and ban guns from them too?

rick_reno
August 9, 2004, 02:35 AM
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa... I am NOT a Democrat!!!!

I'm not one either - in fact, I've voted a solid Republican ticket in every election since Nixon first ran. But not this time - I can't bring myself to vote for Bush. Hell, if he gave us the Patriot Act - knowing he'd have to face an election - I shudder to think of what he's got up his sleeve knowing he won't have to face another election. He is so far from what I consider a Republican, I don't have a clue what he is. I know he's not getting my vote, I'll happily toss it away on a Libertarian this year.

reagansquad
August 9, 2004, 02:40 AM
If you think patriot 1 is bad, go search for a synopsis of patriot II... It more or less revokes all privacy rights, etc etc etc.

If you enjoyed reading about "Where Bush Got His Marching Orders" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!