| Jan 29, 2007 @ 1:30 AM |
A Little History Lesson for Democrats and President Bush Haters
|
|
DiamondRain
Posts: 4,865
|
When addressing the nation to explain why it was necessary to take military action against Iraq, the #1 Icon of the Democrats, Bill Clinton, said the following in December, 1998 (THREE YEARS BEFORE PRESIDENT BUSH BEGAN HIS FIRST TERM).
The Democrats have reversed and backed down from their positions so many times since President Clinton expressed an urgent need to use military force against Iraq, and made up so many outrageous stories as to why they first said one thing, then another, and thrown out so much propaganda, false information and outright lies to cover their political greed that it's hard for anyone to remember the truth anymore. So next time you "blame" the decision to take military action against Iraq on President Bush, and buy the Democrat's history revising lies about their lack of support, remember these words spoken by President Clinton long before George Bush was President.
If you care about truth I urge you to read every word spoken by President Clinton below. The entire transcript of this address can be found here:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
==================================
Quoting President Clinton in his address to the nation December 16, 1998:
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
......
"The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
............................
"This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance."
.............................
"if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past."
...........................
"First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.
The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War."
..........................
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion."
.........................
"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
......................
"Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. "
|
|
  |
|
| Jan 29, 2007 @ 1:37 AM |
A Little History Lesson for Democrats and President Bush Haters |
|
budo13
Posts: 3,083
|
i never said that man was a threat, in my best buba voice 
|
| |
|
| Jan 29, 2007 @ 3:01 AM |
A Little History Lesson for Democrats and President Bush Haters
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,010
|
Clinton was no dummy. Even though he was parroting Bush the seniors words he saw the threat. If anybody can tell me that he would have attempted to prosecute a war on terror without taking care of Saddam first and, tie it in with a democratic change in the heart of the Middle East is a fool.
Of course now, like all politicians, he sees fit to criticize his opponents and further his party's chances of being in power but, keeps an even keel as he knows that if and when the Demodrats get in they will have to deal with the War on Terror with a winning strategy. Even if it is a modified Republican one, therefore, doesn't go too far in his criticism.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 29, 2007 @ 5:09 AM |
A Little History Lesson for Democrats and President Bush Haters |
|
SunBabe
Posts: 12,243
|
I could care less about comparisons and parties. I haven't liked or respected the man since he first threw his hat in the ring. I don't like his attitude, I don't trust his politics, I'm scared to death of his agenda (and cronies), I don't like his personality, I don't like his weasely business practices (and parade of failures that hurt hundreds, financially), I don't like his imperialistic/'monarch-ish' manner, I don't like his secrecy, I don't like his selective sense of morality, I don't like his obvious naivety toward other cultures, I don't like his "games" he's played with the citizens of this country (and others), I don't like his arrogance and aloofness, I don't appreciate his lack of compassion and lack of humanity, I don't respect his administrative abilities, I don't like or respect his so-called executive decisions or methods...and I'm disgusted, disappointed and embarassed that HE, of ALL the much more highly qualified and effective individuals in this [formerly] great nation, is the one who Americans chose to represent and LEAD us. I don't like it that he has destroyed my one-time pride in being an American. He's caused me to lose faith in our system...and I'll resent that fact for the rest of this lifetime. 
I do not like green eggs and ham.
And I do not have an ounce of respect for that man. 
|
| |
|
| Jan 29, 2007 @ 5:12 AM |
A Little History Lesson for Democrats and President Bush Haters
|
|
SunBabe
Posts: 12,243
|
Oh, and I didn't like Clinton much, either. But I still have more respect for him than I could ever have for King George. 
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 29, 2007 @ 11:45 AM |
A Little History Lesson for Democrats and President Bush Haters |
|
tatiana329
Posts: 1,122
|
When are we ever going to get a president, who has actually served some military time?
|
| |
|
| Jan 29, 2007 @ 12:19 PM |
A Little History Lesson for Democrats and President Bush Haters
|
|
kattsmeow
Posts: 21,239
|
Should have voted for Al Gore then!!!!!! 
I have to say, I was so dissapointed when he lost.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 29, 2007 @ 12:23 PM |
A Little History Lesson for Democrats and President Bush Haters |
|
budo13
Posts: 3,083
|
yeah being as AL is responsible for the internet a man that smart should have been president  
|
| |
|
| Jan 29, 2007 @ 12:24 PM |
A Little History Lesson for Democrats and President Bush Haters
|
|
kattsmeow
Posts: 21,239
|
He inhaled too. 
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 29, 2007 @ 12:27 PM |
A Little History Lesson for Democrats and President Bush Haters |
|
budo13
Posts: 3,083
|
wheres ROSS when ya need him 
|
| |
|
| Jan 29, 2007 @ 12:42 PM |
A Little History Lesson for Democrats and President Bush Haters
|
|
kattsmeow
Posts: 21,239
|
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 29, 2007 @ 4:15 PM |
A Little History Lesson for Democrats and President Bush Haters |
|
DiamondRain
Posts: 4,865
|
I am convinced there was divine intervention in the last two elections that somehow spared this country from the disastrous fate it would have suffered under the likes of Gore or Kerry.
But now, with the likes of Hillary, Obama and the other retread, leftover, leftists again threatening the future of the country, I can't help but wonder if there is a limit to even God's patience and he might not just let us go down in ruins this time.
|
| |
|
| Jan 29, 2007 @ 4:49 PM |
A Little History Lesson for Democrats and President Bush Haters
|
|
uab_5
Posts: 2,371
|
leftists again threatening the future of the country,
More so than the Republicano-fascists have ruined the U.S. already?
About Junior:
The boy's dangerous! They all sense it. Why can't you? 
You were the chosen one. It was said that you would destroy the Sith, not join them. You were to bring balance to the force, not leave it in darkness. 
His whole damn presidency reeks of another bad Star Wars prequel.  
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 29, 2007 @ 5:36 PM |
A Little History Lesson for Democrats and President Bush Haters |
|
sealacamp
Posts: 3,136
|
Oh, and I didn't like Clinton much, either. But I still have more respect for him than I could ever have for King George
So you would rather support a proven liar than a theoretical liar. Figures.
S
|
| |
|
| Jan 29, 2007 @ 6:24 PM |
A Little History Lesson for Democrats and President Bush Haters
|
|
uab_5
Posts: 2,371
|
At least Slick Willy didn't stick both hands and feet into Tar Baby.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 30, 2007 @ 12:24 AM |
A Little History Lesson for Democrats and President Bush Haters |
|
SunBabe
Posts: 12,243
|
So you would rather support a proven liar than a theoretical liar. Figures
ONE of these days when I get extremely bored, I may post an entire LIST of PROVEN lies that have been swept under the rug by avoidance, diversion and stonewalling.
I'd MUCH rather know somebody engaged in SEX and lied to save face or whatever (a STUPID thing to do, in actuality) than to see someone lie and BE a lifelong WEASLE (time and again!) and it affects MILLIONS -- exponentially. Including his FRIENDS, not just his country.
The guy has the morals of an arrogant little prick cum schoolyard bully. 
Oh, and I don't like Hillary EITHER.
|
| |
|
| Jan 30, 2007 @ 12:41 AM |
A Little History Lesson for Democrats and President Bush Haters
|
|
Silvertongue62
Posts: 6,932
|
Ooops I stumbled into the wrong thread. let me get my rich and getting richer azzzzzzzz out of here !
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 30, 2007 @ 9:06 AM |
A Little History Lesson for Democrats and President Bush Haters |
|
DoorWatcher
Posts: 6,259
|
So you would rather support a proven liar than a theoretical liar. Figures.
Figures?? Theoretical?? Cute....
At least Slick Willy didn't stick both hands and feet into Tar Baby.
I'll take a lie about a stupid tryst in the Oval Office over national deception, world-wide humiliation, and a questionable war fought by under-equipped troops. Why isn't there more of an uproar about what is happening in Afghanistan???
|
| |
|
| Jan 30, 2007 @ 11:52 AM |
A Little History Lesson for Democrats and President Bush Haters
|
|
uab_5
Posts: 2,371
|
I believe the consensus is that Afghanistan was the good war.
Unfortunantly it's turned into an open ended commitment as well. 
It's unfair to the next POTUSA that he/she will have to spend the first year or so of his/her administration detangling us from the web of wars Junior has woven.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 30, 2007 @ 12:28 PM |
A Little History Lesson for Democrats and President Bush Haters |
|
DiamondRain
Posts: 4,865
|
It's unfair to the next POTUSA that he/she will have to spend the first year or so of his/her administration detangling us from the web of wars Junior has woven.
Apparently you choose to ignore that the military action in Iraq was fully supported and sanctioned by the majority of members from both parties of Congress, and a large number of nations around the world.
And you also seem to choose to ignore the words of President Clinton that I posted in this thread, that show that he too not only fully supported military action against Iraq, but actually TOOK military action (although he failed to achieve his objective). I don't recall the Democrats complaining about that military action (or its objective) against Iraq.
Instead, you would rather think of this as something President Bush thought up all on his own and decided to do in a vacuum.
You clearly can't be bothered with the facts, so there is no point in trying to convince you. Carry on, we will just have to step over you.
|
| |
|
|
|
|