Posted on 10/10/2003 6:49:59 PM PDT by PhiKapMom
October 10, 2003
“In the post-9/11 era, certain risks are unacceptable. The United States made our position clear: We could not accept the grave danger of Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies turning weapons of mass destruction against us or our friends and allies.” (Vice President Dick Cheney, Remarks At The Heritage Foundation, 10/10/03)
Dean “Convinced More Than Ever” War Resolution Was Mistake. “I am now convinced more than ever that it was a mistake to have given this administration a blank check to engage in this war, as too many in Congress did when they supported the Iraqi war resolution …” (Gov. Howard Dean As Quoted In Scott Shepard, “Democrat Kerry Demands Bush ‘Tell The Truth’ About Iraq War,” Cox News Service, 7/10/03)
Kerry Only Willing To “Threaten The Use Of Force,” Not Actually Use It. “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations. I believe that was right -- but it was wrong to rush to war without building a true international coalition -- and with no plan to win the peace.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Candidacy, Patriot’s Point, SC, 9/2/03)
Clark Thinks War Was “Unnecessary … Mistake …” “I fully supported taking the problem to the United Nations and dealing with it through the United Nations. I would never have voted for war. The war was an unnecessary war, it was an elective war, and it’s been a huge, strategic mistake for this country.” (Wesley Clark, CNN’s Democrat Candidate Debate, Phoenix, AZ, 10/9/03)
“Critics of our national security policy have also argued that to confront a gathering threat is simply to stir up hostility. In the case of Saddam Hussein, his hostility to our country long predates 9/11, and America’s war on terror. In the case of the al Qaeda terrorists, their hostility has long been evidenced. And year after year, the terrorists only grew bolder in the absence of forceful response from America and other nations. Weakness and drift and vacillation in the face of danger invite attacks. Strength and resolve and decisive action defeat attacks before they can arrive on our soil.” (Vice President Dick Cheney, Remarks At The Heritage Foundation, 10/10/03)
Kerry Said Preemption Invites Other Nations To Do Opposite Of What We “Want Them To Do.” “[A]s long as this administration leaves a preemptive doctrine on the table, as long as our administration is proceeding down the road to develop nuclear bunker-busting weapons, and as long as we remain a country that will conduct a preemptive war, we’re inviting people to do the very thing that we don’t want them to do.” (Sen. John Kerry, CNN’s Democrat Candidate Debate, Phoenix, AZ, 10/9/03)
Clark Claimed Preemption “Is Causing North Korea And Iran To Accelerate” WMD Programs. “[T]his administration’s preemptive doctrine is causing North Korea and Iran to accelerate their nuclear weapons development. Now, there are some of us who aren’t in Washington right now. But I’d like to ask all those who are -- let’s see some leadership in the United States Congress. Let’s see you take apart that doctrine of preemption now. I don’t think we can wait until November of 2004 to change the administration on this threat. We’re marching into another military campaign in the Middle East. We need to stop it.” (Wesley Clark, CNN’s Democrat Candidate Debate, Phoenix, AZ, 10/9/03)
Dean Predicted Preemption Will “Cause America Some Serious Trouble.” “[T]his president has now created a new American foreign policy a preemptive doctrine. And I think that’s going to cause America some serious trouble down the line, too.” (Gov. Howard Dean On CNN’s “Wolf Blitzer Reports,” 4/23/03)
Lieberman Thinks “It Was Foolish To Declare” Preemptive Doctrine. “I opposed that [preemption] policy. I think it was foolish to declare such a policy. It outraged both our enemies and our allies around the world. A nation always preserves the right to take preemptive action in defense of our security and our freedom. But why declare it and offend -- and provoke everyone.” (Sen. Joe Lieberman, Democrat Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)
Edwards Claimed Preemption Is “Distracting And Damaging.” “A leader who has to go it alone is no longer leading anybody. In that context, let me say a few things about the administration’s so-called preemption doctrine. … [I]f we believe the United States is about to be attacked, or faces an imminent threat, then we have an absolute right to protect ourselves. It’s called self-defense – it isn’t new; it isn’t controversial; and it doesn’t need a fancy new name. But this administration did not just reassert our right to self-defense. … [T]hey asserted a new doctrine that suggests a uniquely American right to use force wherever and whenever we decide it’s appropriate. … The result has been distracting and damaging.” (Sen. John Edwards, Remarks At Center For Strategic & International Studies, Washington, DC, 10/7/02)
“Another criticism we hear is that the United States, when its security is threatened, may not act without unanimous international consent. Under this view, even in the face of a specific, stated, agreed upon danger, the mere objection of even one foreign government would be sufficient to prevent us from acting. This view reflects a deep confusion about the requirements of our national security. Though often couched in high-sounding terms of unity and cooperation, it is a prescription for perpetual disunity and obstructionism. In practice, it would prevent our own country from acting with friends and allies, even in the most urgent circumstance. To accept the view that action by America and our allies can be stopped by the objection of foreign governments that may not feel threatened, is to confer undue power on them, while leaving the rest of us powerless to act in our own defense. Yet we continue to hear this attitude in arguments in our own country -- so often, and so conveniently, it amounts to a policy of doing exactly nothing.” (Vice President Dick Cheney, Remarks At The Heritage Foundation, 10/10/03)
Dean Believed Iraq Had WMD, But United Nations, Not U.S., “Should Disarm Saddam.” “I believe that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons, and they are a threat to many nations in the region, but not to the United States. Therefore in my view, the United States ought not to attack unilaterally. The United Nations should disarm Saddam, and we should be a part of that effort.” (Howard Dean On PBS’ “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer,” 2/25/03)
Clark Believed Iraq “Problem” Should Have Been Left To United Nations. “[Iraq] was never an imminent threat. It was a problem. I fully supported taking the problem to the United Nations and dealing with it through the United Nations. I would never have voted for war. The war was an unnecessary war, it was an elective war, and it’s been a huge, strategic mistake for this country.” (Wesley Clark, CNN’s Democrat Candidate Debate, Phoenix, AZ, 10/9/03)
Clark Wanted U.S. To Prove Case Against Terrorists To United Nations Before Taking Action. “If we wanted to go after states supporting terrorism, why not first go to the United Nations, present the evidence against Al Qaeda, set up a tribunal for prosecuting international terrorism?” (Wesley Clark, Winning Modern Wars, 2003, p. 132)
Kerry Insists We Need To “Go To The United Nations Now.” CNN’s CANDY CROWLEY: “Should you become president, if you get solid evidence that Iran is in fact developing nuclear weaponry, and you cannot get anything in the U.N. like what you would like, are you prepared to go after a factory in Iran on your own?” KERRY: “… We need a president now to prevent us from the very choice that you just said could occur, and that will only happen if we go to the United Nations now and get rid of the sense of American occupation in Iraq.” (Sen. John Kerry, CNN’s Democrat Candidate Debate, Phoenix, AZ, 10/9/03)
Gephardt Insisted President “Get Help” From U.N. To “Deal With Iraq.” “I said to [President Bush] … that if you wanted to deal with Iraq, you’ve got to get help and you’ve got to go to the U.N. I said, ‘We created the U.N. It’s our organization. We’re the leader. We need to get the help that we need.’” (Rep. Dick Gephardt, Congressional Black Caucus Democrat Candidate Debate, Baltimore, MD, 9/9/03)
Gephardt Measures Success By Number Of Allies Instead Of By Steps To Defend Americans. “It is incomprehensible to me that we are here today six months, five months after the conflict ended, and he still has not gotten any money from any other country and any people of appreciable numbers from any other armed forces. This president’s foreign policy is a miserable failure. He has failed the American people.” (Rep. Gephardt, Congressional Black Caucus Democrat Candidates Debate, Baltimore, MD, 9/9/03)
David
If I had my way, all freepers and all Republicans would turn off Fox for 30 days and see what the response would be. That will not happen, however, because too many are too busy saying "Fox rocks" or "Fox rules" to notice what has happened.
The 'RATS never got the memo: When in a hole, the first rule is to STOP DIGGING !The are STILL DIGGING their own graves, imho ...
They haven't a CLUE whatsoever ! Looking back at Election 2002, they thought that the problem was that they weren't FIRM ENOUGH AGAINST President Bush, so what did they do? They replaced Dick Gephardt with Nancy Pelosi ! Get someone who opposes President Bush with someone who opposes him MORE ... AND who is FARTHER OUT THERE IN LEFT FIELD !! Like I said, they haven't a CLUE !!
The Dirty 'RATS !They think that they will be able to get someone into the White House by OPPOSING Bush on every front. They cannot come up with any viable plans or 'solutions', though. Just Bush-bashing, and opposing him on everything. After Election 2004 is over, the 'RAT carnage will will make Election 2002 look like a 'RAT Holiday ! ...
November, 2004:
President Bush on the Road to Victory ...November 2004 (the SIXTEEN words):
The GOP gained seats in the House and the Senate.
Meantime, President Bush wins in landslide !
Who runs this again? Anybody seen him or her?
Why hasn't the RNC done more before now to combat the misinformation?
• If it has an "R" after its name, vote for it.
• Yes, in politics, winning is everything.
• Republicans running against Democrats have earned your vote.
• Common sense trumps principles, morals, and conscience because even the bad guys have principles, morals, and conscience — but they don't resemble yours in any way, shape or form.
Requests for exceptions to the above must be submitted in writing, in triplicate, with adequate justification.
Yep !Speaking of clintoon ... last year Ron Kirk, the ex-Dallas 'RAT mayor, ran for Texas Senate against John Cornyn, the GOP candidate. Right after Kirk locked up the 'RAT nomination, one of the FIRST things he did was to make it CLEAR that he did NOT want clintoon coming down here to 'help' campaign for him. I kept commenting during the campaign that I wish that Kirk would bring clintoon down here, lol ! Of course, it didn't matter anyway. Cornyn never was behind in the polls from day one, and won without a sweat !
John Cornyn-R, left, and Ron Kirk-DWhoops ! It looks like the Ron Kirk link/site is DOA now ...
Only semi-sarcastic because people who vote their conscience worry me. If a staunch pro-life Democrat is running for congress against a pro-choice Republican, conscience would dictate that the voter should vote for the pro-life Democrat, but common sense dictates that if the pro-life Democrat gets elected, his party would never allow him/her to introduce any pro-life legislation — no way, no how. He/she would have to follow the Liberal agenda.
Yep ! One could write it all out, showing their failures and they still wouldn't get it I think ...
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.
