[JohnHuang2]

Friday, January 23, 2004

Quote of the Day by Dolphy

[JohnHuang2]

[I. M. Trenchant]

Americans support the war in Iraq and, by extension, Bush because they see it as part of a bigger picture. Like everybody, they now know that Saddam was not the threat they thought he was (at least, not to them) but they still think it was a good idea to deal with him, before he became one.

But for how long ? Vietnam is always relevant. Even a rumour -- however ill-founded -- that attrition of U.S. ground forces, owing to casualties and deaths in Iraq (already about 2 - 3% in 7 months), and insufficient enlistments in the National Guard and Reserves, will require institution of the draft, could cause public support to plummet very quickly.

[ThePythonicCow]

bump

[My Dog Likes Me]

My "Jason Blair" alarm went off as I read this commentary.
Anyone else?

[CyberAnt]

I still believe the intel. There is a stockpile of Saddam's WMD hidden somewhere .. and we will find it.

I have no evidence to support it .. just a gut feeling!

[GretchenEE]

Just excellent, perfect, dead-on truth.

[KangarooJacqui]

The Age was one of the few Australian newspapers I ever wanted to work for. In fact, as it is THE Melbourne broadsheet, and I studied journalism at university in Melbourne, it was what my journalism class all aspired to.

Wiping the tears from my eyes after I finished reading that piece, I can all-too-clearly remember why "The Age" was my paper of choice... and why it was the only Australian paper I still read, in its online version, during the time I lived in the US.

Thanks for posting this, JH2.

[B4Ranch]

"The couple told me they had just been to a private meeting with Bush to discuss the loss of their son. At the time, it was already clear that Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction. "

"[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

"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

"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

"Iraqis 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

"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's 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 an elicit 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
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

"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


(This doesn't mean I've changed my views towards illegal immigration!)LOL

[new cruelty]

Great article. Thanks for posting it.

[auboy]

Thanks, John!

[philosofy123]

I get magazines such as Vanity Fair, which last month had a column by the editor angrily listing statistics from the war in Iraq. Such as: number of American soldiers killed: 500. Number of weapons of mass destruction found: 0. And, you would like to argue this fact?

[BOBTHENAILER]

Beautiful post.

[chimera]

... the editor angrily listing statistics from the war in Iraq. Such as: number of American soldiers killed: 500

There are statistics and there are statistics. Since the antiwar crowd likes to use them in this, it's only fair to put them in perspective:

500 deaths = number of people killed in auto accidents in six days in this country

500 deaths = number of people killed by drunk drivers in this country in 2 1/2 weeks

500 deaths = number of deaths in this country from alcohol abuse in about 22 hours

500 deaths = number of people who die in this country from smoking-related illnesses in about a 10 hour period

and finally, the Big One:

500 deaths = number of people who die in this country about every 3 hours from abortion

That is not to minimize the sacrifice that those 500 brave souls and their families have made. Each one is a tragedy and, as with all wartime deaths, those of us who remain must never forget or fail to appreciate that loss. But those who would use that as a political issue would be well-advised to examine what the cost in human lives is for those other issues they so passionately advocate.

[Happy2BMe]

Thank you, JohnH! - for this great resource in one place of typical Democrat backpeddling on the war in Iraq.

It typifies the "opportunitstic" character of Democrats and how they will shift position with any sudden change of wind.

Democrat presidential candidates GRILLING ON THE SPIT - PING!

Official Democrat Party Terrorism Policy

Do Nothing Democrats On The War In Terror
By Tamara Wilhite

D = do-nothing democrat, C = concerned citizen

C: What do we do about the terrorists?

D: Do nothing.

C: Shouldn't we be trying to fight them?

D: Certainly not. If we kill them, they'll hate us.

C: Don't they already hate us?

D: That's beside the point. They don't like us, and we can't give them a valid reason for their hatred of us by killing their cohorts.

C: What about the fact that they've been killing us for years?

D: Soldiers volunteered for that when they volunteered for the military, so their deaths don't count unless it furthers our agenda. Conservative black diplomats serving in Africa don't matter. Dead evangelical missionaries get what they asked for - martyrdom. We shouldn't do anything about those idiots who got themselves killed.

C: What should we do if they continue to attack us at home?

D: Nothing! We can't strike back. That would risk enraging the Arab Street.

C: I thought they already hated us.

D: Yes, but striking out at them would breed more terrorists.

C: Aren't they already breeding terrorists?

D: Yes. But the Muslim minority in this nation is very vocal and very active in increasing their numbers by both local production and foreign imports. We can't risk them being angry with us. They're very conservative, but they can be lulled to the Democratic side. Acting against their friends in the Middle East risks them becoming violent in our own streets.

C: Haven't some of those locally born or naturalized citizens sought to act against the US?

D: We can't assume they did anything. We don't have adequate proof yet.

C: Those men from Lackawanna pled guilty.

D: They haven't run out of appeals, so we can't assume that they're guilty.

C: What can we do to defend ourselves from attack?

D: Converting to Islam is a possibility.

C: If we do nothing, we might not be allowed to make that choice willingly.

D: Nonsense! Islam is a religion of peace!

C: The Sunni and Shiite attacks on each other in Iraq and Pakistan are proof that that's not a safe option. They're throwing suicide bombers at other sects of Islam even as they send them at our allies and us.

D: That's a trivial detail. They hate us because we're oppressing them.

C: How are we oppressing them?

D: We're buying their oil!

C: How is that oppressing them?

D: We're bringing capitalism to their socialist dictatorships. Democracy could only be around the corner if that continued.

C: Then how do we stop oppressing them?

D: We should stop buying their oil.

C: Then how will we keep our economy going?

D: We won't. That's part of the beauty of it. We would just do nothing. No oil imports. No problems.

C: Our economy would stall -

D: More Democratic votes.

C: We'd see the transportation network grind to a stop -

D: More people doing nothing, and that would save the environment, too.

C: Shouldn't we build more power plants here, then, to reduce dependence on their oil?

D: Oh, no.

C: Why not?

D: That costs too much.

C: Per your arguments, it would reduce the terrorist motivations.

D: Yes, but it would provide jobs and power. We can't do that.

C: So you vote to turn off the oil imports and to not bother with a replacement fuel source?

D: Of course! Doing nothing about the supply or the demand issues would bring the whole nation to a stop! Imagine it! Everyone doing nothing ... except being motivated to vote for us because we can solve the crisis!

[DrDeb]

EXCELLENT ARTICLE BUMP!

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for posting this excellent article.

[P.O.E.]

BTTT

[Libloather]

Americans like Bush.

A few nitwits don't - but they'll come around...