Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"IMMINENT" --- here are the exact words used by President Bush
whitehouse.gov | Jan 28, 2003 | Bush and speechwriters

Posted on 11/15/2003 8:14:32 AM PST by doug from upland

At at time where the survival of our nation is dependent upon stopping the Islamist threat to our way of life, I am sicked at the spectacle that is the DemocRATic Party. Ted "Lifeguard" Kennedy said on the Sean Hannity Show that "we were told we would find nuclear weapons." That is bunk. The president never said that.

Other RATS have claimed that President Bush said the threat of attack with WMDs was imminent. No, he didn't say that either.

It is sometimes helpful to use a person's exact words. We have those words. Remember these words. Send them to you local newspaper and get them on talk radio.

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; imminent; imminentthreat; quotes; saddam; threat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last

1 posted on 11/15/2003 8:14:33 AM PST by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent...."

Great post.

2 posted on 11/15/2003 8:17:12 AM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
And I would argue - and have argued - that a nation that harbors terrorists, promotes terrorism, has active chem/bio/nuke program, has shown the willingness to use WMD, has invaded its neighors in the past, and is in violation of US and international law constitutes an imminent threat.
3 posted on 11/15/2003 8:17:27 AM PST by Cacophonous (War is just a racket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
I agree with you. But the critics are putting words in his mouth that he didn't say and then lying about him.
4 posted on 11/15/2003 8:20:02 AM PST by doug from upland (Why aren't the Clintons living out their remaining years on Alcatraz?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: doug from upland
Time and place GW said this, Doug?
6 posted on 11/15/2003 8:21:53 AM PST by SwinneySwitch (Freedom isn't Free - Support the Troops & Vets!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
When it becomes evident they are prepared to attack in a few hours, what can we do about it then? We are out of time. It took quite a while too get our forces prepared. We have a president who gets it. Thank God for George W. Bush.
7 posted on 11/15/2003 8:21:58 AM PST by doug from upland (Why aren't the Clintons living out their remaining years on Alcatraz?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
BUMP!
8 posted on 11/15/2003 8:22:31 AM PST by jmstein7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch
Sorry that I didn't make it clear. The date was shown above -- Jan. 28 -- the State of the Union.
9 posted on 11/15/2003 8:22:53 AM PST by doug from upland (Why aren't the Clintons living out their remaining years on Alcatraz?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Why doesn`t Bush say the real truth for once, "Democrats would rather give more credibility to a bunch of psychotic killers than me because the only thing that matters to Democrats is power, even at the expense of their own country, which is why they are capital T Traitors, and why they should be voted out of freggin` existence forever into oblivion."
10 posted on 11/15/2003 8:23:29 AM PST by metalboy (Liberals-Nuke `em from orbit. It`s the only way to be sure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metalboy
He can't say it, but we can. And we must - over and over and over and over (as the bloated killer lifeguard said).
11 posted on 11/15/2003 8:24:53 AM PST by doug from upland (Why aren't the Clintons living out their remaining years on Alcatraz?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
And he is handling it poorly. We all agree that Iraq posed an imminent threat. What he should say is, "Hell yes they were an imminent threat. Saddam butchers and gases his own people, is pursuing WMD, aids and abets terrorists and terrorism...yes, he was a threat, an urgent one, an immediate one, yes, an imminent one. We took him out."

That in no way invalidates or violates the Powell Doctrine of pre-emption that Bush was describing and defending in the words you posted. Simply, since Iraq posed an imminent threat, the Powell Doctrine does not apply.

Instead, the President and GOP jumped through hoops playing Clintonian word games, saying that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat, so the Powell Doctrine applies. Actually, we did not need the Powell (pre-emption) Doctrine to go justify ann invasion (and have, in my opinion, a stronger justification without invoking the Powell Doctrine). But now I'm repeating myself.

I get so frustrated with the GOP's ability to constantly shoot itself in the foot.

12 posted on 11/15/2003 8:26:46 AM PST by Cacophonous (War is just a racket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
You're making my point.
13 posted on 11/15/2003 8:27:24 AM PST by Cacophonous (War is just a racket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
"I agree with you. But the critics are putting words in his mouth that he didn't say and then lying about him."

A common strategy and one that has been used against me and probably anyone who has ever dealt with more than two other people in his entire life. Those who are best at doing this are able to seem oblivious to the fact of what they are doing and when confronted will deny to the end that they are, in fact, the liars. Such practitioners can be amusing to watch if you are not directly involved in what is going on, on the other hand, observing them can also cause extreme hypertension.

14 posted on 11/15/2003 8:28:47 AM PST by RipSawyer (Mercy on a pore boy lemme have a dollar bill!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
I can not believe how Bush has handled his Presidency! He has never once stooped to the media or swung at any pitches in the dirt.

He tells the truth and lets the chips fall where they may.

From my perspective....he has a pretty big pile of chips right now!!
15 posted on 11/15/2003 8:29:15 AM PST by Delta 21 (MKC (USCG-ret))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RipSawyer
And the President and GOP have not handled it well. Please see my post #12.
16 posted on 11/15/2003 8:30:14 AM PST by Cacophonous (War is just a racket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
Instead, the President and GOP jumped through hoops playing Clintonian word games, saying that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat

What is so hard to understand about the President's very own words?

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

That doesn't seem Clintonian at all to me.

17 posted on 11/15/2003 8:31:48 AM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
Our side has been on the defensive far too long. For months and months the RATS have had the upper hand in the press. It has hurt our president, our nation, our troops, and the war on terror.
18 posted on 11/15/2003 8:32:15 AM PST by doug from upland (Why aren't the Clintons living out their remaining years on Alcatraz?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Thanks for the thread, Doug.
19 posted on 11/15/2003 8:32:43 AM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
I am grateful every time I read something like this that George W. Bush is our president. Being proactive instead of reactive is the only way we'll stay ahead in these trying times.

Bush never really had much experience in foreign policy or defense when he took office, but he has excellent instincts and that's more valuable than all the schooling in the world.

20 posted on 11/15/2003 8:32:53 AM PST by Allegra (CBS has canceled this tagline. It was "not due to controversy." Tom Daschle is disappointed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
In the LOOKING GLASS world that is the WONDERLAND of democrats, WORDS mean whatever THEY want them to, Up is Down, Black is White. It matters NOT what is REALLY SAID but rather what DEMOCRATS say was said!!
21 posted on 11/15/2003 8:35:08 AM PST by PISANO (God Bless our Troops........They will not TIRE-They will not falter-They will NOT FAIL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
What is Clintonian is the warped justification. Instead of saying, forthrightly, truthfully, that Saddam and Iraq were imminent threats that had to be elimination, the President and GOP now have to go to great pains to show that Iraq was not an imminent threat. Even though Saddam as/was pursuing WMD, butchers his people like Hitler, invades his neighbors, etc.

The President and GOP, in order to defend the Powell Doctrine of pre-emption, have to convince his detractors that Saddam and Iraq were not immminent threats.

22 posted on 11/15/2003 8:37:13 AM PST by Cacophonous (War is just a racket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
The year appears to be off by a bit. LOL
23 posted on 11/15/2003 8:37:45 AM PST by FormerlyAnotherLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PISANO
Was a dictator that housed and funded terrorists and terrorism, pursued WMD, butchered and gassed his own people, invaded his neighbors and was a sworn enemy of the US an imminent threat?
24 posted on 11/15/2003 8:38:55 AM PST by Cacophonous (War is just a racket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FormerlyAnotherLurker
Doh. Where have the 10 years gone??? I asked Admin Mod to change it.
25 posted on 11/15/2003 8:40:22 AM PST by doug from upland (Why aren't the Clintons living out their remaining years on Alcatraz?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch
It is from the 2003 State of the Union address. The paragraph is about 2/3 of the way down. -Tom

read the speech here IF my html attempt doesnt work try http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-22.html

26 posted on 11/15/2003 8:41:10 AM PST by Capt. Tom (anything done in moderation shows a lack of interest -Capt. Tom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PISANO
Can anyone post full text of that address?
27 posted on 11/15/2003 8:41:39 AM PST by God defeats Darwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Tony Snow reminded Rockefeller of this fact by playing the tape of the speech, and reading from the transcript (in case he didn't "get" it), and was relegated to radio duty immediately thereafter. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, but it's disturbing that when someone in the media finally does their job correctly, they're removed from the job one way or the other. We need journalists who will do as Snow did, and hold liars' feet to the fire when they tell their whoppers. I don't have any faith that Chris Wallace will be any different from most other network hacks. What a loss, Snow replaced by Wallace.

28 posted on 11/15/2003 8:42:07 AM PST by MizSterious (First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
"But the critics are putting words in his mouth that he didn't say.."

They can run, but they can't hide.

In actual FACT, it was Jay Rockefeller, himself who said those words:

"There's been some debate over how imminent a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat.

..It is in the nature of these weapons and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, the 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."

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Speech on Iraq CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE -- Thursday, October 10, 2002 Full speech here: http://www.thiefsden.net/archives/000073.html

29 posted on 11/15/2003 8:42:10 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Why do America's enemies desperately want DemocRATS back in power?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
Just released, a CIA bombshell --- FUNDED BY HUSSEIN!

CIA Bombshell: Saddam Financed Lead 9/11 Hijacker
NewsMax ^ | 11/15/03 | Limbacher

Posted on 11/15/2003 7:58 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection

In a startling about face for U.S. intelligence officials, a bombshell memo released by the CIA on Saturday draws a direct link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks, citing evidence that Iraqi intelligence bankrolled lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta in the months leading up to the worst terrorist attack ever on U.S. soil.

The previously secret 16 page memo, released by the Senate Intelligence Committee Saturday morning, says Atta met at least three times in Prague with Iraqi intelligence agent Ahmed al Ani prior to the 9/11 attacks.

In a staggering revelation that offers an overwhelming and compelling justification for the U.S. attack on Iraq, the CIA memo says that, during one of these meetings, al Ani "ordered the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office."

More . . .

30 posted on 11/15/2003 8:43:10 AM PST by doug from upland (Why aren't the Clintons living out their remaining years on Alcatraz?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Then instead of trying to convince Rockefeller that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat, wouldn't it have been better to say, "Yeah, Jay, he was an imminent threat. I'm glad we agree. We took him out. Thanks for the support."
31 posted on 11/15/2003 8:44:23 AM PST by Cacophonous (War is just a racket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
they full subscribe to the Joseph Goebels idea of telling a lie often enough to have the people accept it as fact.

And I think it was Schumer making that same charge against the GOP during the 39 hour talkfest, classic projection.

32 posted on 11/15/2003 8:45:41 AM PST by StriperSniper (All this, of course, is simply pious fudge. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
The RATS are really in a trap. I wonder if the stupid, nitwit, lightweight, no gravitas, drunken frat boy set up the elitist geniuses.
33 posted on 11/15/2003 8:45:56 AM PST by doug from upland (Why aren't the Clintons living out their remaining years on Alcatraz?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: Cacophonous
I get so frustrated with the GOP's ability to constantly shoot itself in the foot.

Well just thank your lucky stars your not a Democrat. The've already blown away everything below their knees.

35 posted on 11/15/2003 8:47:38 AM PST by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Great quotes. I think I will use them on talk radio. Perhaps attack Bush by saying, look, these are his words. He lied. He lied. Whoops. I guess I made a mistake. These are the words of Jay Rockefeller. Never mind.
36 posted on 11/15/2003 8:47:38 AM PST by doug from upland (Why aren't the Clintons living out their remaining years on Alcatraz?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: hflynn
I'm not a Republican either. But I wish they would quit eating their own brains so I could become one.
37 posted on 11/15/2003 8:49:18 AM PST by Cacophonous (War is just a racket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
Holy Libertarians! Back to the Batcave Robin.
38 posted on 11/15/2003 8:52:34 AM PST by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
I'll try this again, with family-friendly language:

Regarding the memo, it's nice to see the intelligence community earning its keep. Back in the day, we would have had pictures of Saddam...a big grit-eating grin on his face and his arms around a big ol' missile with the chem and nuke symbols and "Death to USA" in English on it. Before the war.

39 posted on 11/15/2003 8:53:36 AM PST by Cacophonous (War is just a racket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
But the critics are putting words in his mouth that he didn't say and then lying about him.

Instead of acting like a punching bag, it would be nice if the President stood up for himself by publicly reiterating what he actually did say and decouncing these Rats who are intent on twisting his words for what they actual are -- unabashed liars.

40 posted on 11/15/2003 8:54:15 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hflynn
Wrong again. I don't belong to a party, but it's true I tend to vote Republican.
41 posted on 11/15/2003 8:54:18 AM PST by Cacophonous (War is just a racket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
It's early and it's a weekend.
I always catch my mistakes just about 0.73 seconds after I hit 'post'.
Been changed, thanks.
42 posted on 11/15/2003 8:55:43 AM PST by FormerlyAnotherLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PISANO
Remember that for them the end justifies the means, they are not really democrats, they are disciples of Marx. Little by little they have stolen our freedoms, made each of us a criminal against the State as they pass laws that are vauge and purposely so. Each layer of law is a trap so that when necessary they can whisk us away into the night. The socialists are stealing our country while we chase after a phantom enemy known to us as a Liberal. There are no Liberals, only socialists who would make us all slaves to the state. While the elite class would serve as rulers and masters.
43 posted on 11/15/2003 8:56:52 AM PST by Camel Joe (Proud Uncle of a Fine Young Marine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
I see it this way. Was the idea that Iraqi forces would somehow invade our country to attack us an "imminent" threat? No. Was the idea of Saddam giving or selling WMD's to terrorist groups covertly an "Imminent" threat? Possibly.

Some people forget all the history behind us going back into Iraq. Remember us going back to the UN and getting another resoulution? All 15 security member nations agreed 15-0 that Iraq was a threat. Remember the UN sending back in their team of inspectors to fumble around sites that Saddam would allow them to visit? Remember when the inspectors left and the Dems cried out to allow the inspections to work for another six months or however long they figured it would take (20 years??)Remember the volumes of data and cd's that he submitted that were outdated and incomplete? I could go on and on....

Saddam was warned repeatedly to cooperate. He was offered the chance for exile and to give up power. He refused all his options and the rest is history.

44 posted on 11/15/2003 8:57:14 AM PST by Normal4me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Delta 21
I can not believe how Bush has handled his Presidency! He has never once stooped to the media or swung at any pitches in the dirt. He tells the truth and lets the chips fall where they may.

Yup! They can say what they will about GW, but you just have to admire the steadfastness of his character.

45 posted on 11/15/2003 8:57:18 AM PST by mylife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Normal4me
Oh I understand the logic, and see your point. I just think it's a lousy way for the President to resond to his critics. I would venture that al qaida was not considered an "imminent" threat on September 10, 2003, either.
46 posted on 11/15/2003 8:59:30 AM PST by Cacophonous (War is just a racket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
Wrong again. I don't belong to a party, but it's true I tend to vote Republican.

Well this appears to be a case of two wrongs make you alright.

47 posted on 11/15/2003 9:00:34 AM PST by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Doug, I understand your frustration, but the Dem treachery is becoming known. Just because CNN isnt blaring it, the people are starting to pick up on what the Dems game plan is. I think the memo and the filibuster will gain us at least 3 seats in the Senate. Yetserday, one of the lefties at work told me, "Patrick, we dont agree on most, but you were right about the Dem party, what they are doing is wrong." Now coming from this person, these words signal a shift...at least to me. Six months ago this person would have never admitted her party was to blame..
48 posted on 11/15/2003 9:01:41 AM PST by cardinal4 (Hillary and Clark rhymes with Ft Marcy park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI; All
"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, 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 reinvigorated 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, Dec, 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 Rockeffer (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 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



"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


49 posted on 11/15/2003 9:03:55 AM PST by BraveMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: hflynn
Why would not belonging to a party be a wrong? I don't feel compelled to blindly support the candidates of one party or t'other. If he's a good man, he's a good man; if he's a lout, he's a lout.

I have voted for dems before, and would again if they ever again produce the most conservative candidate. I don't believe I've ever voted libertarian, but I don't totally disagree with them, either, in fact they say some quality things (though not always). I have voted for independents.

50 posted on 11/15/2003 9:04:02 AM PST by Cacophonous (War is just a racket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson