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

Skip to comments.

The Democrats' Case Against Saddam Hussein (Dems nailed, yet again)
www.senate.gov/~rpc ^

Posted on 01/27/2003 4:03:31 AM PST by chance33_98



The Democrats' Case Against Saddam Hussein

As the date approaches for likely Congressional action on an Iraq resolution, Democrats have begun sounding the alarms of dissent. Hinting at a "Wag the Dog" scenario, they have questioned whether Iraq truly poses a clear and present danger to the United States and implied that the Bush Administration may only be acting with an eye toward November. Speaking on the floor last week, Senator Byrd appears to have gotten this latest ball rolling:

"What Congress needs is solid evidence. What we need are answers. Does Saddam Hussein pose an imminent threat to the United States? Should the United States act alone as this administration has been threatening to do? Should Congress grant the President authority to launch a preemptive attack on Iraq?" [floor statement, 9/20/02]

Al Gore followed suit on Monday, albeit in much stronger terms, expressing concern that "[the President] is demanding in this high political season that Congress speedily affirm that he has the necessary authority to proceed immediately against Iraq." Gore went on to add, "no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such choice is not presented in the case of Iraq" [speech, 9/23/02].

Few would disagree that legitimate questions remain to be considered regarding our policy toward Iraq, among them such issues as the scope of the authority given the President to act and the likely long-term U.S. investment in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. However, questions over the evil nature of the regime and whether or not it poses a threat to our interests seem already to have been addressed, as the following statements attest.

These statements - by leading Democrat Senators - spell out a strong case against Iraq, and they have another thing in common - all were made in 1998. Yet, if the threat was real then, it only stands to reason that it has grown over the last four years, a fact supported by the testimony of Iraqi defectors as well as recent intelligence reports as to the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capabilities of Baghdad.

Senator Daschle:

"Iraq's actions pose a serious and continued threat to international peace and security. It is a threat we must address. Saddam is a proven aggressor who has time and again turned his wrath on his neighbors and on his own people. Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people. . . . The United States continues to exhaust all diplomatic efforts to reverse the Iraqi threat. But absent immediate Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, the security threat doesn't simply persist - it worsens. Saddam Hussein must understand that the United States has the resolve to reverse that threat by force, if force is required. And, I must say, it has the will" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Biden:

"An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail. We risk sending a dangerous signal to other would-be proliferators if we do not respond decisively to Iraq's transgressions. Conversely, a firm response would enhance deterrence and go a long way toward protecting our citizens from the pernicious threat of proliferation. . . . Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Lieberman:

"Today, the threat may not be as clear to other nations of the world, but its consequences are even more devastating potentially than the real threat, than the realized pain of the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, because the damage that can be inflicted by Saddam Hussein and Iraq, under his leadership, with weapons of mass destruction is incalculable; it is enormous. . . . Mr. President, if this were a domestic situation, a political situation, and we were talking about criminal law in this country, we have something in our law called 'three strikes and you are out,' three crimes and you get locked up for good because we have given up on you. I think Saddam Hussein has had more than three strikes in the international, diplomatic, strategic and military community. So I have grave doubts that a diplomatic solution is possible here. . . . What I and some of the Members of the Senate hope for is a longer-term policy based on the probability that an acceptable diplomatic solution is not possible, which acknowledges as the central goal the changing of the regime in Iraq to bring to power a regime with which we and the rest of the world can have trustworthy relationships" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Levin:

"Mr. President, this crisis is due entirely to the actions of Saddam Hussein. He alone is responsible. We all wish that diplomacy will cause him to back down but history does not give me cause for optimism that Saddam Hussein will finally get it. . . . Mr. President, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world's energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council. . . . Mr. President, the use of military force is a measure of last resort. The best choice of avoiding it will be if Saddam Hussein understands he has no choice except to open up to UNSCOM inspections and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. The use of military force may not result in that desired result but it will serve to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction and to threaten international peace and security. Although not as useful as inspection and destruction, it is still a worthy goal" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Kerry:

"Mr. President, we have every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein will continue to do everything in his power to further develop weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver those weapons, and that he will use those weapons without concern or pangs of conscience if ever and whenever his own calculations persuade him it is in his interests to do so. . . . I have spoken before this chamber on several occasions to state my belief that the United States must take every feasible step to lead the world to remove this unacceptable threat. He must be deprived of the ability to injure his own citizens without regard to internationally-recognized standards of behavior and law. He must be deprived of his ability to invade neighboring nations. He must be deprived of his ability to visit destruction on other nations in the Middle East region or beyond. If he does not live up fully to the new commitments that U.N. Secretary-General Annan recently obtained in order to end the weapons inspection standoff - and I will say clearly that I cannot conceive that he will not violate those commitments at some point - we must act decisively to end the threats that Saddam Hussein poses." [Congressional Record, 3/13/98.]

In fairness, a few of these Senators have continued to recognize this increased threat and maintained a certain level of consistency on the subject. Unfortunately, others have not.

Consider the following remarks by a key Democrat: "There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. . .Saddam should never doubt the will of the American people, their legislators, their military, or their commander-in-chief to protect our interests, defend our security, and ensure the well-being of our fellow citizens and that of our friends and allies around the world. He should know that when it comes to protecting our vital national interests, Americans will stand as one. We will speak as one. And whenever, necessary, we will act as one."

Of course, these were the comments of Vice President Al Gore in February 1998, not those of presidential aspirant Al Gore in September 2002. And yet, they claim that Republicans are the ones politicizing the case against Iraq?


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: democrat; democrats; iraq; war

1 posted on 01/27/2003 4:03:31 AM PST by chance33_98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000; JohnGalt; Slipjack; SauronOfMordor; EternalHope; cpdiii; taxed2death; cake_crumb; ...
Cranking it up a notch ping!
2 posted on 01/27/2003 4:15:38 AM PST by chance33_98 (Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
My god...when I read those quotes it really angers me. Every time you think the Democrats can't possibly stoop any lower, you are reminded of what vermin dominate their party. Why on EARTH hasn't Bush and the Republicans used these qoutes in speeches FOR the war, not to mention taking out advertisements stressing the Democratic dishonesty. You need to call these vermin out and show the American people the truth.
3 posted on 01/27/2003 4:20:22 AM PST by MarkDel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98; #3Fan; A CA Guy; Amelia; anniegetyourgun; AppyPappy; ArneFufkin; Arthur McGowan; ...
Excellent post BTTT.

The 'Rat politicization of our national security has got to stop. They are welcome to tag along for the ride, but they will have to learn to behave, and be quiet there in the back seat with their coloring books and toys, while the adults take care of this important business.

4 posted on 01/27/2003 4:22:14 AM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
Hinting at a "Wag the Dog" scenario, they have questioned whether Iraq truly poses a clear and present danger to the United States .....

Did Serbia present a "clear and present danger" to the USA in 1999?

5 posted on 01/27/2003 4:22:41 AM PST by PJ-Comix (Redundancy Can Be Quite Catchy As Well As Contagious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad; MarkDel
Now, the better part of a decade later, Iraq continues to shirk its clear obligations. Iraq has no one to blame but itself -- and the people of Iraq have no one to blame but Saddam Hussein -- for the position Iraq finds itself in today. Iraq could have ended its isolation long ago by simply complying with the will of the world. The burden is on Iraq to get back in compliance and meet its obligations -- immediately.

Clinton 1998 - notice the Bold section...

6 posted on 01/27/2003 4:23:59 AM PST by chance33_98 (Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
These statements - by leading Democrat Senators - spell out a strong case against Iraq, and they have another thing in common - all were made in 1998.

The difference is that the Demmycrats knew that Clinton didn't really mean it when he warned about Iraq back in 1998.

7 posted on 01/27/2003 4:24:46 AM PST by PJ-Comix (Redundancy Can Be Quite Catchy As Well As Contagious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarkDel
Why on EARTH hasn't Bush and the Republicans used these qoutes in speeches

I got that from the republican policy committee :) Someone in the party is doing something - let's hope they step it up!

8 posted on 01/27/2003 4:25:46 AM PST by chance33_98 (Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
"Mr. President, we have every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein will continue to do everything in his power to further develop weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver those weapons, and that he will use those weapons without concern or pangs of conscience if ever and whenever his own calculations persuade him it is in his interests to do so. . . . I have spoken before this chamber on several occasions to state my belief that the United States must take every feasible step to lead the world to remove this unacceptable threat. He must be deprived of the ability to injure his own citizens without regard to internationally-recognized standards of behavior and law. He must be deprived of his ability to invade neighboring nations. He must be deprived of his ability to visit destruction on other nations in the Middle East region or beyond. If he does not live up fully to the new commitments that U.N. Secretary-General Annan recently obtained in order to end the weapons inspection standoff - and I will say clearly that I cannot conceive that he will not violate those commitments at some point - we must act decisively to end the threats that Saddam Hussein poses."

Want a creative Freep? Then print out this statement of Kerry's and then when he visits your area on the campaign trail, ask him to autograph it.

9 posted on 01/27/2003 4:27:51 AM PST by PJ-Comix (Redundancy Can Be Quite Catchy As Well As Contagious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
Chance,

That's good to hear. They need to get MUCH more aggressive in pointing out the hypocrisy of the anti-war Democrats. With each passing month that we don't attack, we are losing a small amount of support of the American public...not a lot, but a little each passing month. This erosion will stop dead in its tracks once the Democrats are rightfully exposed as vile hypocrites.
10 posted on 01/27/2003 4:29:19 AM PST by MarkDel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
The difference is that the Demmycrats knew that Clinton didn't really mean it when he warned about Iraq back in 1998.

Which makes me wonder something. If Bush is doing for the oil as they say, and I have heard them say that Clinton did not want to screw up the economy as a reason he did not do more - then what are we looking at? Clinton and crew wanted to keep americans fat and happy, capitalism flowing, at the expense of thousands of Iraqi's suffering under sanctions AND while allowing saddam to kick out inspectors and make more WMD.

So which is more evil? Killing Saddam with some civilan causalities for oil - or letting saddam build up weapons, torture people, kill people, and allow them to suffer en masse under sanctions; all so you can keep people back home happy (who NOW claim we only want to do it for our own selfish greedy reasons)?

11 posted on 01/27/2003 4:31:02 AM PST by chance33_98 (Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MarkDel; All
Headline Rundown and links on Iraq - Things the democrats have conviently forgot...

Those are the ones I have compiled myself, which only add to this...

12 posted on 01/27/2003 4:32:51 AM PST by chance33_98 (Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MarkDel
They need to get MUCH more aggressive in pointing out the hypocrisy of the anti-war Democrats.

Why are the dems anti-war (at least, why do they say they are) - the reason they claim that is they save many poor iraqis will suffer needlessly. Where were they during the 90's when they were suffering under sanctions? WHY are they not out protesting against Saddam at the Iraqi Embassy? Why do they give a horribly evil man a pass and then attack Bush? They care more for politics then the children of Iraq. They are sick freaks in my book.

13 posted on 01/27/2003 4:55:29 AM PST by chance33_98 (Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
save=say, been a long night I obviously need more coffee.
14 posted on 01/27/2003 4:56:10 AM PST by chance33_98 (Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
btt
15 posted on 01/27/2003 5:39:29 AM PST by jwalsh07 (Boycott France, Germany and the UN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
I swear, they're trying to get us all killed. So much for "standing shoulder-to-shoulder" with the president. Heck, they won't even stand shoulder-to-shoulder with their fellow countrymen. It's one thing to be an obstructionist on re-naming a D.C. airport, but it's downright traitorous on such matters of import in these perilous days.
16 posted on 01/27/2003 6:31:24 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

Well, perhaps they are playing to their environwacko constituencies, who view all of humanity as nothing but a cancer upon the body of Mother Earth.

17 posted on 01/27/2003 6:34:39 AM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun; Howlin; Tennessee_Bob
If this is the case, then what are the Dems standing to gain by opposing removing Saddam?

1. Seeing the Repubs finish what Clinton could not; removing Saddam.
2. An attempt to lessen the support America has of President Bush
3. Saving face in an attempt to stop the war on terrorism from being successful (which they opposed)
4. Getting their 2004 candidate to the front of the news. Which Senator is crossing their state line to argue and publicly (in the media) fault Bush? Clinton.

Democrats are evil, pure and simple.

Who else is opposing Bush and standing shoulder to shoulder with the Dems? Any "True Conservatives"?
18 posted on 01/27/2003 6:42:28 AM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
I can't think of any additional reasons for their behaviors beyond the ones you have listed. which, of course, means it's selfishly and politically motivated. Certainly it's not that they are vehemently anti-war pacifists, because their comments in support of their guy in the Whitehouse last time would put the lie to that notion. One can only come to the same conclusion you came to.....evil.
19 posted on 01/27/2003 6:46:21 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
I know you have heard about the military calling for air-strikes onto the very positions that they are defending, with the full knowledge that they themselves will be destroyed in the process, well there comes a time when we might consider the same approach - these trashbag liberals are 'gonna' destroy us all! did you happpen to see 'Babs Boxer' sunday morning on CNN? she referred to the military as 'our beautilful people' and should we send them into harms way? I fully expected to hear her say our 'baby boys and girls' - these pathetic Americans have encouraged the despots and will continue to do so.
20 posted on 01/27/2003 8:55:05 AM PST by Cabbages and Kings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
"Did Serbia present a "clear and present danger" to the USA in 1999?"

Of course not. But impeachment, the Cox Report and Juanita Broaddrick constituted a "clear and present danger" to the First Felon's "legacy".

Accordingly, it was necessary for some Serbs to die -- that Willie's "honor" might be "saved".

21 posted on 01/27/2003 9:06:43 AM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cabbages and Kings
Wow, Boxer said that, when she knows full well the "beautiful people" were just at the Golden Globes Awards in her area, far from harms way, and none of them will ever likely lift a finger to defend our Nation from concerns of present or future terrorist threats.
22 posted on 01/27/2003 9:16:35 AM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cabbages and Kings
By the way, I really like your screen name!!!
23 posted on 01/27/2003 9:17:05 AM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
I recommend that we e-mail each of the Senators on this list a copy of his former statement with that No Weasels symbol supper-imposed and c-copy major news outlets.
24 posted on 01/27/2003 9:22:38 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
The 'Rat politicization of our national security has got to stop.

For that to happen the Rats would have care about someone other then themselves

For them this is about 2004 and not about the best interest of the American People

25 posted on 01/27/2003 9:46:21 AM PST by Mo1 (I Hate The Party of Bill Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
Right. Clinton and the Demcorats were "all hat and no cattle" .. they reversed the wisdom of TR that said "speak softly and carry a big stick" with bleating loudly then doing nothing.

Not that Bush administration is braying that it is serious, saddam doesnt take the words seriously.

If the US does not act to take out saddam now after making it plain he is unacceptable, it will make our words less serious. that itself is a serious issue to ponder.

26 posted on 01/27/2003 9:52:29 AM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
typo ... "Not" --> "Now"
27 posted on 01/27/2003 9:52:53 AM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
As I put it in another threat ...

Putting Partisanship above Patriotism.

28 posted on 01/27/2003 9:53:53 AM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
Axis of Weasels bump!
29 posted on 01/27/2003 10:12:36 AM PST by talleyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
"If the US does not act to take out saddam now after making it plain he is unacceptable, it will make our words less serious. that itself is a serious issue to ponder."

Never rattle the saber unless you intend to use it.

30 posted on 01/27/2003 7:52:15 PM PST by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MarkDel
My god...when I read those quotes it really angers me. Every time you think the Democrats can't possibly stoop any lower, you are reminded of what vermin dominate their party. Why on EARTH hasn't Bush and the Republicans used these qoutes in speeches FOR the war, not to mention taking out advertisements stressing the Democratic dishonesty. You need to call these vermin out and show the American people the truth.

YOU, MarkDel, need to call your paper, radio and TV stations! Get it on!

31 posted on 01/27/2003 8:27:00 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

ping
32 posted on 01/27/2003 10:13:00 PM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
I hope this stuff starts getting some play. This should be most embarassing for Kerry who has utterly contradicted himself.

Putting Lieberman in this is a bit unfair. He's on the right side of this fight.
33 posted on 01/27/2003 11:45:41 PM PST by MattAMiller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
TYPICAL TWO FACED DEMOCRATS! Why am I not surprised?
34 posted on 01/28/2003 2:51:28 PM PST by agincourt1415 (First 3 to 4 days of War a Living Hell for the Enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agincourt1415
The liberals love to lie and twist, they don't want us to nail saddam because it will make Bush look good. They had their chance, they blew it.
35 posted on 01/28/2003 2:59:03 PM PST by chance33_98 (Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: tazman3; rooster1
ping for readin' later
36 posted on 01/28/2003 8:40:54 PM PST by tazman3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
BTTT!!

I know this is a year old but, given that John Kerry is running for president and running his mouth about his opposition to this war, perhaps it would do well to remind folks of what this DemocRAT said about Iraq in the past!
37 posted on 01/27/2004 11:21:21 AM PST by Sister_T (Democrats AND The Lamestream Press are the REAL enemies to freedom in the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sister_T

BTTT


38 posted on 11/01/2005 12:38:03 PM PST by PogySailor (Good luck to my son & buddies of the 1/11 Marines in Iraq. (TAD to the 3/1))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98

BTTT


39 posted on 05/24/2007 8:22:57 AM PDT by JHBowden (Give peace a chance! Kill terrorists!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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