The Democrats' Case Against Saddam Hussein (Dems nailed, yet again)

www.senate.gov/~rpc ^

[chance33_98]

Cranking it up a notch ping!

[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.

[Cultural Jihad]

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.

[PJ-Comix]

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?

[chance33_98]

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...

[PJ-Comix]

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.

[chance33_98]

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!

[PJ-Comix]

"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.

[MarkDel]

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.

[chance33_98]

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)?

[chance33_98]

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...

[chance33_98]

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.

[chance33_98]

save=say, been a long night I obviously need more coffee.

[jwalsh07]

btt

[anniegetyourgun]

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.

[Cultural Jihad]

I swear, they're trying to get us all killed.

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.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

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"?

[anniegetyourgun]

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.

[Cabbages and Kings]

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.