FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY A BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD (It's in the Breaking News sidebar!)
Did the guy produce it in his home?
Well Nancy. we'll try to be more careful next time and make sure that the weapons are actually being used against us before we take any action.
What is it about preemption that the Dems don't understand? As we all know but has somehow escaped Pelosi's notice: Bush never claimed that Saddam was an immenent threat. Sometimes I think they hear the word PREEMPTION and mentally substitute the word IMMINENT. The policy is not to wait for an imminent threat. The policy is to strike preemptively against future threats. All the better to to avoid losing 3000 people in one shot by some wacko Islamic fanatic.
The Dems are not only foolish and irresponsible - they are downright scary.
Someone needs to remind Ms. Botox of Bush's words -- that we should NOT wait until the threat is imminent.
"I understand probably more than anyone what a threat Iraq was ... I was beneath the towers on September 11th when they fell. And I again want to thank the president for the honor in allowing me to go there, because I lost 23 people ... They were defending the freedom of our country. I got to go on their behalf to Iraq to bring freedom to Iraq and take one less threat away from us in this country."
Adults are in charge, ping!
If you want on or off my Pro-Coalition ping list, please Freepmail me. Warning: it is a high volume ping list on good days. (Most days are good days).
Nancy, Nancy. Let's go over it again. The ONLY reason that Saddam let UN inspectors back into what was then very much "his" country is because the mighty US military was massing on his borders and shores. The military was in those locations for quite some time while Powell and Co. danced with Blix and Chirac at the UN.
I know it's a challenge for you to understand Nancy, but most humans have a level of something called morale. And prolonged sitting on the borders was guaranteed or had even started to effect the morale of our troops. Not an ideal situation especially if you need your soldiers, sailors and Marines to be an effective fighting unit.
Additionally, there's the little matter of the COST of keeping them there. As a Democrat that's usually one of your first objections or talking points that you raise with Republicans and I wonder why you so conveniently ignore the topic in this instance? Hmmm, you Democrats sure are funny that way.
Nancy, I don't want to have to explain this again. You are a big girl and more capable of reasoned thought than your party tells you. Now, shape UP!!
Prairie
Why is this wrong? Because it implies that the whole war hinged on WMD. It did not. And it implies that Bush was claiming that the finding of WMD proves that the war was necessary. He did not. He merely said that evidence was found that shows Hussein was dangerous.
So why is the headline so sneaky? Because it makes Bush look defensive, when he has not been. Anything to make him appear weak, the press and their string-pullers will do.
Did anyone else have trouble with this headline? I know it's par for the course for misleading headlines, but this is about something important, as it involves our soldiers putting their lives on the line.
Perhaps Sen. Carl Levin has been confused by his own party's rhetoric . . .
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity
to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver
them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from here, 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."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has
ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser,Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the
region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of
mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his
weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless
using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles
that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001
"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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"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
"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
"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
"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
"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 Rockeffer (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This
he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"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
"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
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
"In addition to intent, we have found a large body of continuing activities and equipment that were not declared to the U.N. inspectors when they returned in November of last year," Kay said.
Kay said Iraq's nuclear weapons program appears to have been the least developed program uncovered so far, but the country did have bombs that could fly as far as 1,000 kilometers, much further than the 93-kilometer limit the U.N. had imposed on the country.
UH!!!!
HELLO???
I swear, if I hear the word "imminent" uttered by one more Democrat, I AM GOING TO BLOW A GASKET!!! 9/11 wasn't imminent UNTIL IT HAPPENED, YOU !@#$%^ IDIOTS!
Of course, they know all that. Just politics, don't ya know...