question for thoes who hate bush

[bob]

And, as an addendum to Cypress' points, I'd like to point out that Clinton rarely even mentioned Saddam Hussein, except to make quick political points with selected audiences.

The thesis that he (Saddam) was touted as a major security threat throughout the 90s is pretty much unsupportable.

i didnt limit it too ole billy

 

[maineman]

well gosh...I suppose Jim Bob down at the local Texaco Station may have said that Saddam was THE major threat, but the leader of MY party never did.

so what IS your fucking point?

 

[bob]

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, 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."



Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State


Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html


Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.



We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."



Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President


Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002



http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm



http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,797999,00.html



http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/24/1032734161501.html


Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust Saddam Hussein.



The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
February 13, 2002


http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F10B1FFF3D5B0C708DDDAB0894DA404482


Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998:



The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:



"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."



Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998


http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm




America is threatened by an "unholy axis":



"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.



We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.



Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."



President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998



http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/SOTU98/address.html



http://www.usemb.ee/union98.php3

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.



I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.



What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.



The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein.



The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.



This is not an easy decision, and it carries many risks. It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and almost certainly in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action.



We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction -- the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them.



The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."



Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
Addressing the US Senate


September 12, 2002
http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html


"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."



President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998



http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html



http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html



just about every time clintion said somthing about terrorist, he also said somthing about saddam

 

[Cypress]

i didnt limit it too ole billy

Of course you didn't.

It was the PNAC neoconservatives who claime Iraq was the biggest threat. Not the Democratic White House or State Department.

Saddam was A regional threat, and a potential threat to our oil supplies in the gulf. And he certainly needed to be contained from reconstituting WMD.

 

[Cypress]

None of your post Bob, state the Iraq was THE biggest threat.

You're backpedaling now, and moving the goal posts backwards.

 

[Cypress]

Also, you're moving the goal posts backwards, by pulling out quotes from 2002.

In case you forgot, your ORGINAL claim was:

How come in the 1990s, people said Saddam was THE biggest threat?

 

[bob]

None of your post Bob, state the Iraq was THE biggest threat.

You're backpedaling now, and moving the goal posts backwards.

ok, not much of anything was labeled " the biggest threat"

 

[bob]

Also, you're moving the goal posts backwards, by pulling out quotes from 2002.

In case you forgot, your ORGINAL claim was:

How come in the 1990s, people said Saddam was THE biggest threat?

ya i threw a few extras in there

 

[maineman]

yeah...I missed that "THE GREATEST THREAT" part in all those quotes Bob....could you point that out to me?

 

[Cypress]

yeah, we get your little game bobby.

When your original assertion is proven false, instead of admitting you were wrong, you just move the goal posts backwards, and change your argument.

 

[bob]

yeah, we get your little game bobby.

When your original assertion is proven false, instead of admitting you were wrong, you just move the goal posts backwards, and change your argument.

i have no goal here, what are you saing saddam was no threat...

and why was saddam brought up just about every time they talked about terror ?

 

[Cypress]

ya i threw a few extras in there

Either admit your original assertion was wrong ("Why did people in the 1990s say Saddam was THE biggest threat")

Or change your original question to:

"Why did people think Saddam was a threat in the 1990s?"


You dumbass....no one ever said he wasnt' a possible threat.

You're claim was that in the 1990s, democratic leaders said he was THE BIGGEST threat.

Admit you were wrong, dude.

 

[uscitizen]

Most of those quote dates were after the 90's as well.

 

[Prakosh]

ok, not much of anything was labeled " the biggest threat"

Actually, nothing was. I love it when righties prove themselves wrong.

The only appropriate thing to do now is for those who forced this admittance to declare "victory" and back away from the thread.

 

[bob]

I love it when righties prove themselves wrong.

The only appropriate thing to do now is for those who forced this admittance to declare "victory" and back away from the thread.

i havent backed away. i am tring too multitask here

 

[bob]

Also, you're moving the goal posts backwards, by pulling out quotes from 2002.

In case you forgot, your ORGINAL claim was:

How come in the 1990s, people said Saddam was THE biggest threat?

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, 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."



Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State

 

[bob]

Either admit your original assertion was wrong ("Why did people in the 1990s say Saddam was THE biggest threat")

Or change your original question to:

"Why did people think Saddam was a threat in the 1990s?"


You dumbass....no one ever said he wasnt' a possible threat.

You're claim was that in the 1990s, democratic leaders said he was THE BIGGEST threat.

Admit you were wrong, dude.

i would but i dont feel that i am wrong

 

[bob]

Most of those quote dates were after the 90's as well.

not most about half

 

[Prakosh]

i havent backed away. i am tring too multitask here

You might forgo that. Apparently it is above your competency level. Suggestion for future posts: always have your quotes in hand before you attempt to ascertain what they say.

 

[bob]

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, 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."



Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State

dose this not count or somthing, or just ignoring it ?