President Bush Takes Credit For The War

[Diamond Cross]

Here are few choice quotes by Democrats.

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
September 13, 2001
WavSource: September 11 Terrorism 2

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq - February 17, 1998


Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Georgetown University
January 23, 2003
http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/cf....cfm?id=189831


"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."

Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)
Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
Statement of Senator Rockefeller on the Senate floor, October 10, 2002

So these quotes show Prominent and famous Democrats supporting President Bush's actions. Now in usual partisan political fashion they criticise President Bush for having to go and take out Saddam. In truth they are just as at fault for the whole war that President Bush is, because of their support. No one can come away from this war with their hands clean since it was so unilateraly supported.

Unless of course the Democrats didn't mean it and were blowing hot air.


The site:

Freedom Agenda - Quotes and Facts on Iraq

[IminWonderland]

Of course they are also to blame for us being in this War.

BUT....

They aren't the one's that are RUNNING the war, are they?

Bush is the DECIDER. Bush is the head of this War and the way that it is being run. He took it upon himself to make this ultimate decision, and he is responsible for it.

We can and could all have opinions on what we "THINK" we should have done about Saddam and all that. But he is the one who made the decision, and now he has to live with the consequences.

[Diamond Cross]

President Bush may be the "decider", but he still couldn't do anything without full support. If he didn't have full support he would've been forced to bring back the troops early and there never would've been an "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

[thatguyoverthere]

I agree. Impeach and remove from office all those Democrats. Or vote them all out for new blood. That's what the Democratic party needs anyway.

The above quoted Democrats did not act (until Bush led the way.) Bush did. Whether they should have or he shouldn't have is beside the point, but I have to tell ya; the case for not acting is shaping up to be a pretty strong case nowadays.

The facts are that Bush used, and then abused, the national unity after 9/11, and cherry picked the facts that the Iraq war was based on. And again, he is "the Decider." The Iraq war is Bush's baby. He made it all go.

The buck stops on Bush's desk. Can't pin the blame on the donkey!

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

I agree. Impeach and remove from office all those Democrats. Or vote them all out for new blood. That's what the Democratic party needs anyway.

The above quoted Democrats did not act (until Bush led the way.) Bush did. Whether they should have or he shouldn't have is beside the point, but I have to tell ya; the case for not acting is shaping up to be a pretty strong case nowadays.

The facts are that Bush used, and then abused, the national unity after 9/11, and cherry picked the facts that the Iraq war was based on. And again, he is "the Decider." The Iraq war is Bush's baby. He made it all go.

The buck stops on Bush's desk. Can't pin the blame on the donkey!

Exactly. Congress, stupidly, voted to hand over thier constitutional authority to declare war. They gave Bush that authority and Bush made the call to go to war.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Exactly. Congress, stupidly, voted to hand over thier constitutional authority to declare war. They gave Bush that authority and Bush made the call to go to war.

The same thing happened in 1964 with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. There was no real declaration of war, just a permission slip for greater executive powers. That didnt work out so well either.

[SICKGUY]

the big difference is that almost every person from those quotes has come out and admitted their mistakes. if they havent openly said "i was wrong" their tune has certainly changed over time.

bush & co. have completely refused to admit to any wrong doing.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

I agree. Impeach and remove from office all those Democrats. Or vote them all out for new blood. That's what the Democratic party needs anyway.

The above quoted Democrats did not act (until Bush led the way.) Bush did. Whether they should have or he shouldn't have is beside the point, but I have to tell ya; the case for not acting is shaping up to be a pretty strong case nowadays.

The facts are that Bush used, and then abused, the national unity after 9/11, and cherry picked the facts that the Iraq war was based on. And again, he is "the Decider." The Iraq war is Bush's baby. He made it all go.

The buck stops on Bush's desk. Can't pin the blame on the donkey!

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Here are few choice quotes by Democrats.

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
September 13, 2001
WavSource: September 11 Terrorism 2

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq - February 17, 1998


Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Georgetown University
January 23, 2003
http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/cf....cfm?id=189831


"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."

Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)
Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
Statement of Senator Rockefeller on the Senate floor, October 10, 2002

So these quotes show Prominent and famous Democrats supporting President Bush's actions. Now in usual partisan political fashion they criticise President Bush for having to go and take out Saddam. In truth they are just as at fault for the whole war that President Bush is, because of their support. No one can come away from this war with their hands clean since it was so unilateraly supported.

Unless of course the Democrats didn't mean it and were blowing hot air.


The site:

Freedom Agenda - Quotes and Facts on Iraq

Ok, then let's remove them all from office. They are ALL responsible. Start with Bush.

[Diamond Cross]

Whyt I support term limits.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Whyt I support term limits.

Isnt that why we vote? Each voting cycle we decide who stays and who goes? Are we not setting the term limits then?

[Diamond Cross]

No. The President has a maximum of two terms he can have, which doesn't have to be sequential. The same should go for senators and congressmen.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

No. The President has a maximum of two terms he can have, which doesn't have to be sequential. The same should go for senators and congressmen.

The President is a completely different ballgame.
I think getting lobbyists and big business out of the pockets of the legislative branch and the voting process will be the deciding factor that limits or extends their terms.

[Diamond Cross]

I agree with that in addition to term limits.

It's stated that anyone in America can run for
President, but not when it costs 200 million for it.


But that is the subject of another thread.