Posted on 11/01/2005 11:40:50 AM PST by LisaFab
Harry Reid just made a motion, that was seconded, to send the Senate into closeed session.Schumer, Rockefeller and Durbin are before the press asking for a Senate Intelligence investigation into the Plame affair
Notice they did this right after Rush went off the air. I think they wanted at least 21 hours without his pointing out what loons they are.
Bump.
It's a sad sad state of affairs when members of our "elected" government throw our lives and those of our sons and daughters down the drain for the sake of their own power plays. It makes me sick to my stomach.
My how times change:
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.]
VP Al Gore 1998
"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."
That's why the Dems are becoming unhinged because every little thing in their evil plot is blowing up in their faces. This is going to be the begiinning of the end for them. This will have the same effect as their behavior during the Wellstone funeral.
i guess only dems are innocent until proven guilty
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) The judge in Rep. Tom DeLay's conspiracy case has been removed
Bill Clinton came out and told the dems through some fundraiser he was out collecting that they need to stand up for their ideas! So, now we see Harry Reid out doing this crap less than 48 hours later? Perhaps Harry's minor stroke caused more brain damage than thought (although he had damage to begin with!)
Even if 2008's GOP nominee was, say, Tom Coburn?
LOL---I am sure that Bush is brokenhearted that the dems would showboat to get attention from his Avian Flu speech...
Let's all remember this...and IF the flu breaks out and the dems accuse Bush of not taking is seriesly, and people say they weren't informed...WE WILL KNOW WHY..
I guess the Dems figure that conducting stunts like this will help get their "Libs are pro-terrorist/weak-on-security" message out.
... (Reid refuses to yield for a question... rambles on)...(now apparently reading from a NY Times anti-Bush editorial)... rambles on some more... (this is pitiful)...
i guess so... its been 20 years since its been done
Yes, it is. I was referring to the judge's moveon.org connection but may have missed the mark. :)
Here it is, was posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1196779/posts?page=37#37
right...
Pray for W and Our Troops
You got it buddy! How can a wife send her husband on a "intelligence gathering" mission, especially without a confidentiality agreement? I think people who are in tune to this are starting to ask this. Was this a real mission or a "I want to get George Bush" trip at the tax payer expense? That's what infuriates me! My good hard tax dollar going to Joe Wilson cocktails and dinners in Niger just to slam this countries war effort! Who allowed the trip? Who picked him? Where's the written report? Why did he come back blabbing all over about a cover operation?
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.