Shrubbie and Maineman

christiefan915 said:
My argument is that when bush presented his "evidence" for going to war, numerous Democrats including the ones quoted didn't believe it was sufficient.
Click to expand...


They didn't believe the evidence was sufficient, yet they were claiming exactly the same thing about Saddam for years, and then they voted FOR the War Resolution, knowing
full well what Bush intended......

Thats an amazing claim considering the undeniable history that exists on tape, video and news coverage, and the timeline of the events....
 
Truth Detector said:
A majority in the Senate were all in and there was a plurality in the House.

House:

Republican Yes = 215; Nay = 6
Democrat Yes = 82; Nay = 126

Senate:

Republican Yes = 48; Nay = 1
Democrat Yes = 29; Nay = 21

What did Democrat leaders say?

"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 | Source

"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 th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source
http://acsa.net/demsay.htm

There's not a lot of ambiguity here. I always have to laugh when brain dead hyper partisan leftists try to walk their party's rhetoric back and make excuses for it.

Carry on ass clown.
Click to expand...

Only five of the people in your quotes voted yes on the Iraq War Resolution of 2002.

Carry on, ass clown.
 
christiefan915 said:
If you mean the statement from five years before the war started, that won't be necessary. I'm talking about what they learned in 2002.
Click to expand...


Well this is Bob Graham, Democrat Senator from Fla. in December of 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.” — Bob Graham, December 2002

Did they learn something different before the end of the month ?

and there are numerous quotes from Sept. and Oct. 2002 and because I lived it and watched them on tv as they were still whining into 2003.....but I'm not gonna
go search for the data now. I'm sure it must exist in some newsprint from that time.
 
NOVA said:
They didn't believe the evidence was sufficient, yet they were claiming exactly the same thing about Saddam for years, and then they voted FOR the War Resolution, knowing
full well what Bush intended......

Thats an amazing claim considering the undeniable history that exists on tape, video and news coverage, and the timeline of the events....
Click to expand...

Only five of those quoted voted for the resolution.
 
A majority of democrats in congress voted against the resolution. Republicans were virtually unanimous in their support of it. Fact.
 
NOVA said:
Well this is Bob Graham, Democrat Senator from Fla. in December of 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.” — Bob Graham, December 2002

Did they learn something different before the end of the month ?

and there are numerous quotes from Sept. and Oct. 2002 and because I lived it and watched them on tv as they were still whining into 2003.....but I'm not gonna
go search for the data now. I'm sure it must exist in some newsprint from that time.
Click to expand...

And Bob Graham voted "no" on the Resolution so something is missing from the quote.
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by tekkychick
Perhaps Romney should have SAID "47% don't pay fed income tax" - but he didn't did he? Are we supposed to read his mind?

And really? YOU REALLY THINK THE ONLY ISSUE PEOPLE VOTE ON IS FEDERAL INCOME TAX RATE?

wow.

Romney had NOTHING to offer for the voters except cutting tax rates? That's it? Really?

Good thing he lost if that's all he had to offer.
Click to expand...




Originally Posted by Zappa...

it's understandable.

We don't have the same Amazing Mental Powers that Righties like NOVA have...they can read the minds of others and tell them what they are thinking.
Click to expand...


No mind reading involved, just knowledge of the facts....facts you don't find on mediamatters or the Huffintonpost
From the transcript of the meeting....

"...These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect."

Romney


Now Schools out kiddies....I tire of embarrising you two...
​
 
christiefan915 said:
And Bob Graham voted "no" on the Resolution so something is missing from the quote.
Click to expand...


Maybe his next line was, "Only kidding folks"...huh

Seriously, here is what Graham said in 2005 about his vote....

His reasons for the no vote rest on the NIE report that contained some caviats and takeing away resourses away from the Afghanistan war.

Reasonable reasons in my book....but doesn't explain why he said what he said in Dec. 2002.....
I suspect this explanation years after the fact is CYA type of document....but I have no interest in trashing him without good reason, I'm not a Democrat.

http://tinyurl.com/dtpyy
 
Last edited:
Taft2016 said:
Forgive me, you're right.

Make that "bluster, bloviate, rationalize, and resort to ad hominems."

But answer the hypocrisy? Never.
Click to expand...

I will address your hypocrisy though I already did in the post you quoted.

Sorry to have to break this to you but the 99% don't pass the laws, the 1% do, which is why I called you bizzaro (opposite).

You must be kidding. The federal government's elected officials are comprised almost entirely of the 1%. Do you argue this fact?

Those that are not in the top 1% have been bought by the 1%. Citizens United anyone?

A perfect example of how it really works was the enactment of TARP.

More citizens (99%ers) called their Congress critters than ever before in history. 90% of the calls were opposed to TARP, yet it passed. Whose will did that represent?
 
NOVA said:
Maybe his next line was, "Only kidding folks"...huh

Seriously, here is what Graham said in 2005 about his vote....

His reasons for the no vote rest on the NIE report that contained some caviats and takeing away resourses away from the Afghanistan war.

Reasonable reasons in my book....but doesn't explain why he said what he said in Dec. 2002.....
I suspect this explanation years after the fact is CYA type of document....but I have no interest in trashing him without good reason, I'm not a Democrat.

http://tinyurl.com/dtpyy
Click to expand...

You're wrong. Graham made the comment in 2001, not 2002, and he wasn't a signatory to the letter.

"Unless the version reproduced on the Department of State's web site is in error, however, Senator Bob Graham of Florida was not one of the signatories to that letter."
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Furthermore, Graham learned the invasion was based on lies and wrote about it in 2005.
What I Knew Before the Invasion

[TD="width: 228"][/TD]

By Bob Graham
Sunday, November 20, 2005

"From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious completion of our aims in Afghanistan. Now I had come to question whether the White House was telling the truth -- or even had an interest in knowing the truth.

On Oct. 11, I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptor. Most of my colleagues could not...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top