Posted on 11/14/2005 9:16:50 AM PST by Wombat101
Let us suppose, then, that we can find a senator who voted for the 1998 act to remove Saddam Hussein yet did not anticipate that it might entail the use of force, and who later voted for the 2002 resolution and did not appreciate that the authorization of force would entail the removal of Saddam Hussein! Would this senator kindly stand up and take a bow? He or she embodies all the moral and intellectual force of the anti-war movement.
If Bush was smart enough to put this over on them they should all resign because they are so stupid they arent fit to be in a position of authority. They are an actual danger to the security of the country. IMO Bush didnt lie to get us in the war , but these people aaaaaaaaaaaare too stupid to be in a position of authority.
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
For Immediate Release
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998.
Wake me up when Bush says 1/10th of what Hitchens wrote there. Don't ask me why he hasn't already.
This paragraph is a thing of beauty:
Let us suppose, then, that we can find a senator who voted for the 1998 act to remove Saddam Hussein yet did not anticipate that it might entail the use of force, and who later voted for the 2002 resolution and did not appreciate that the authorization of force would entail the removal of Saddam Hussein! Would this senator kindly stand up and take a bow? He or she embodies all the moral and intellectual force of the anti-war movement. And don't be bashful, ladies and gentlemen of the "shocked, shocked" faction, we already know who you are.
Yes, what's truly sad is that the Rats *are* nostalgic for the days when Saddam was in power and Rat leaders could *talk* about a war on terror, rather than *doing* a war on terror.
My center-left brother believes the "Bush lied" theory. I hit him with, "ok, you are the President. You want to take Saddam out. But you know you have to lie about WMD's to get us there. Wouldn't you get with your CIA and NSA and make DAMNED SURE that WMD's were "found" very soon after the invasion?"
He didn't want to talk about it anymore. It's easier for them to remember the mantra of "Bush lied" than to actually look at the facts that lead to the fallacy of that argument.
"Wouldn't you get with your CIA and NSA and make DAMNED SURE that WMD's were "found" very soon after the invasion?"
That was very mean of you to confront a liberal with logic and reason...very very mean..! :)
Every time the Lefites open their mouths it makes me thankful that we have Freedom of Speech in America...makes it easier to spot the idiots! LMAO
The GOP should be hitting the 'Rats over the head like a pinata with the lame remarks they've made over the past month or so regarding the war in Iraq!
I recorded the interview with Christopher Hitchens and George Galloway at NYC University a few months ago. Hitchens buried him. This is a keeper and I will put on DVD and give to my friends for Christmas.
I think what got in the way here is that many who disagreed with the first Gulf war got nailed politically. So they took the easy way out and joined the bandwagon. Now they have a hard time going back, even though some try, to make a case of "Bush lied".
In fact, WMD WERE found in the aftermath of the invasion. However, these were WMD's already known to the UN weapon's inspectors, they simply had not been destroyed or rendered inoperative, as they should have been in 1991.
And, if I recall, this has happened at least 10 times, but is never reported by the media. I wonder why (/sarcasm)?
Amazing how they keep losing and getting suckered by a guy who was uspposed to be such an idiot isn't it?
I wonder if all hose democrats who derided Bush on the campaign trail for his lack of gray matter have taken a good look in the mirror lately and wondered to themselves:
"Is he stupid or am I?"
I wouldn't count on it happening because democrats have never been known for honesty and integrity, especially witrh themselves.
I've found an easier way to spot the idiots, I just look for the Kerry bumper sticker on their car!
You hit the nail on the head, my friend. The anti-war vote in 1990 looked like a political loser in the aftermath of Gulf War I.
But, as we can see, the other side is perfectly capable of justifying it's blatant opportunism in terms that shed a bad light on our side.
Their excuse, basically, comes down to this:
They are simply trying to square their pro-war vote with both their party moderates and the anti-war fringe lunatics. In the process, if they have to claim stupidity and menbta retardation, it is a small price for continued political signifigance.
Excuse me, that was "mental retardation". My fingers aren't working very well today!
I know, but I have been picking on him since we were kids. I attacked him with logic and all of a sudden it's not fun to debate politics with big brother anymore.
"...they are actually nostalgic for the same period, when Saddam Hussein was running Iraq, and there were no coalition soldiers to challenge his rule, and when therefore by definition there was peace, and thus things were more or less OK. Their current claim to have been fooled or deceived makes them out, on their own account, to be highly dumb and gullible. But as dumb and gullible as that? "
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.