Demorcrats! I don't know what to think of this...

[rjx]

All I can say is that some of these are individual thoughts, not facts. But I am kind of blank about this. Any thoughts?



Democrats on the Record
By FrontPageMag.com
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 1, 2003


"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 Bill 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 Bill Clinton. Feb. 17, 1998.

"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. 2002.

"ithout 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.

"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.

"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.

"Iraq is a long way from , 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, Clinton's Secretary of State. Feb 18, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright. Nov. 10, 1999.

"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.

"e 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 Senators 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.

"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."

Vice President 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."

Vice President Al Gore. Sept. 23, 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.

"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.

"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.

[DEMActivist]

1. Easy...

none of these people are the current pResident who led us into a war killing thousands based on LIES, LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES.

There's the difference for you.

[BeFree]

29. It's about Cheap Oil

That's why all of 'em have been harping on Iraq.

The truth be told... Cheap Oil security is THE No. 1 Security issue for the continuation of "Our Way of Life."

The US reached it's peak of Cheap Oil supply in the 70's. It's but a matter of time before other's resources reach their peak.

That's how I see it. It is all about Cheap Oil. I'd actually have a little respect for all of 'em if they'd just come out and admit it.

Peace

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rjx]

9. ComerPerro, don't be so quick to attack...

I am a liberal democrat that is concerned about what I typed. Thats why I posted it here. I didn't really know what to think by it and was hoping that you all would share your thoughts. I am not attacking any democrats!

[ComerPerro]

13. It sure seems that way.

But if you are a liberal democrat, please go here:

www.newamericancentury.org

Browse around. Think about their goals, think about who is a member of this organization, and think about the administration's action.

I will concede that many of the quotes in 2002 by Dems were a bit contradictory to the rhetoric now. Bear in mind that Bush brought the issue to debate just before the midterm elections. Many of these people would be labled unAmerican if they voted against the resolution (and many were).

The Bush administration is merciless. Hell, in 2000 they even managed to brand McCain as a cowardly traitor who cheated on his wife and fathered illigitmate children.

The most important point regarding these quotes?

Who took the credit when the war was going well? Who bragged and gloated? Who called critics "unAmerican" and "traitors"? Who got dressed up like a real pilot, stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier, and declared "Mission accomplished"?

The problem is not with Democrats who supported Bush's war. The way Republicans control congress, it would have passed no matter what.

The problem is with Bush's diplomatic failures, his failure to get the UN to back his war, his obvious lack of foresight, and his refusal to deal with Osama bin Laden.


Thats my 2 cents.

[rjx]

17. ComerPerro, thanks for the follow up reply

I agree with everything you said and I have been saying most of the same things for some time now.

:toast:

[Sterling]

21. You are on to something.

Not all Dems are created equal. The quotes you posted show that there are Dems who favor policies like the PNAC plan. Some of them are trying to pretend they were actually against the war now because it has become clear that no pro war Dem is viable to get the nod in the primary.

That is why you have Clark in the race now.

He is the last chance for the right wing Dems to stop Dean. Keep paying attention to the facts and not just what these Johnny come lately "anti_war" dems are saying now that the war is a clear failure.

[blondeatlast]

3. Heh, heh.

Welcome to DU!

:evilgrin:

[radwriter0555]

4. What's the problem? RUMSFELD'S 1998 SECURITY COMMISSION REPORT

was spoon fed to clinton and everyone else thereafter as the pre-eiminent source of hussein speak.

Wanna read it? fascinating melange of lies as could ONLY be told by the bushtater's bestest friend... didn't know it existed? SURPRISE!

oh... start here.. it'll be FUN! http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1998_cr/s980731-rumsfeld.htm

annnnd take a look here too.. why not! GOOD reading! In 1998, a bipartisan commission headed by Donald Rumsfeld, now Secretary of Defense, concluded that the ballistic missile threat to the U.S. was far greater than intelligence estimates had previously indicated. Those findings, which remain controversial, set in motion an accelerated push for national missile defense that continues today. The question in some minds, especially after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is whether the ballistic missile threat has been exaggerated, diverting attention from the threat of terrorism, which remains all too real. Here are excerpts from FRONTLINE's interviews with several players in this debate, including Paul Wolfowitz, Newt Gingrich, Richard Perle, Richard Garwin, Joseph Cirincione, and Gen. Eugene Habiger.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/missile/threat/

Want more? GOOGLE 1998 RUMSFELD COMMISSION REPORT...

and say "well golly gee wiz! The bushtaters were lying ALL THIS TIME!"

[Sterling]

23. Nice try but if they aint smart enough to know better

Than to take their intell from the opposition they are not smart enough to govern. Same to the following post by young red.

[tom_paine]

28. Sterling, there's only one CIA

I'm willing to bet that NOTHING goes down in CIA without the Busheviks knowing about it, even if they can't stop it or alter it, which I'm sure they do often.

And I would say that the Democrats' fatal flaw is to not fight hard enough and to buy into the Right-Wing Sub-Media's Fantasy Bubble.

Finally, the Democrats' severest deficiency, is not recognizing what they were up against. In believing "they would NEVER purposely sabotage their own country like that." The decorum of the corporate/political mentality discourages such radical thinking.

1936 Smedley Butler Coup
McCarthyism
1968 sabotaging of the Paris Peace Talks
Wategate
1980 October Surprise
Iran-Contra (just how DID the Busheviks get an in with the Iranian Radicals?)
1993-1997 Repeated blindsiding of the brand-spanking new Right-Wing Sub-Media producing stories out of whole cloth, lying with abandon (and getting away with it), astroturfing their way to Pravda...
Attempted Coup of 1998
Bloodless Coup of 2000

Have these Nixonvik/Bushevik fucks ever STOPPED committing treason to the Old American Republic?

Perhaps it's a miracle the thing held together until 2000 before it started to expire.

[tom_paine]

25. EXCELLENT POINT, RADWRITER!

I was about to make it myself, but you did a better job...with links yet!

[w4rma]

26. I'm bookmarking your post, radwriter0555. (n/t)

[youngred]

5. yeah, and so?

they were in favor of Iraq resolution because they thought opposing Bush before the mid-terms would get them routed...they got routed anyway and got (somewhat) of a spine.

History and not even very good history. No one (but bush) knew that the intelligence was false, he fed them the same BS he fed everyone, only they trusted it.

[amazona]

6. you have to play the game

Sometimes you have to talk tough in politics and put on a false face to keep a dictator on track. The Clinton-esque policies of talking tough and keeping pressure on Saddam quite obviously worked very well, as Saddam was kept in check and turned out not to have any WMDs.

Some people (neo-cons) are not bright enough to play "the great game" and so they think they need to stab someone every time there is a need to rattle their sword. We could have continued to contain Saddam at little or no cost in American lives. But instead idiots took all the saber-rattling seriously...or more likely...just wanted to make a buck for Halliburton.


i probably said saddam was a bad, bad man myself

[ComerPerro]

8. I call it blood lust

I don't think its that they are too stupid for diplomacy (hell, they might be though). It seems to me to be more of a matter of them thinking they are too good for diplomacy.
After all, we're 'Murikans. If we disagree with someone, we can just invade and/or nuke them into the stone age.

They don't think they should have to waste their time with diplomacy.

[Scaramouche]

7. Despite all the rhetoric...

Not one of them said we have to go in now!

If you think about all the deaths in Iraq over the last 6 months, could have Saddam has killed as many?

Would 6 more months of inspections have shown that he had no WMD's and wasw a toothless tiger?

Rhetoric doesn't kill Americans, War does!!!

[carpetbagger]

10. Methinks this calls for UN inspections.

Oh, wait, we had that for a while, until Bush banned the inspectors from Iraq.

[blondeatlast]

11. Buship lied, presented his lies as facts to Congress.

Inspectors found nothing, there is still no evidence, bushit's knee deep in it now.

Ya know, I believed that evidence too, but it has been over a year now and not a shred of evidence has been found. Our kids are dying for a lie and for oil.

[Rebellious Republican]

12. So, repubs ask for bi-partisianship, Dems give a little, and...

what does dumbya do with that co-operation he LIES to them....

BUSH LIES...Trailers Of Mass Destruction, Part Two..."You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." (italics ours) --WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003

*At the time of this statement, no such weapons were found, and no such weapons have been found to this day. On this point as well as the use of the captured trailers as biolabs, the WP said this in the above article: "U.S. authorities have to date made no claim of a confirmed finding of an actual nuclear, biological or chemical weapon. In the interview, Bush said weapons had been found, but in elaborating, he mentioned only the trailers, which the CIA has concluded were likely used for production of biological weapons." There was no statement of fact, there was no smoking gun. The CIA's finding was advanced as an opinion based on its own particular process of elimination, and it was immediately challenged by both U.S. and U.K. intelligence analysts who had seen the trailers. --Politex, 08.09.03 (italics ours)

Now comes this..."Engineering experts from the Defense Intelligence Agency have come to believe that the most likely use for two mysterious trailers found in Iraq was to produce hydrogen for weather balloons rather than to make biological weapons, government officials say.

The classified findings by a majority of the engineering experts differ from the view put forward in a white paper made public on May 28 by the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which said that the trailers were <"likely used"> for making biological weapons....

The State Department's intelligence branch, which was not invited to take part in the initial review, disputed the findings in a memorandum on June 2. The fact that American and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence were disputing the claims included in the C.I.A. white paper was first reported in June, along with the analysts' concern that the evaluation of the mobile units had been marred by a rush to judgment." --NYT, 08.09.03



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons."
—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a hearing of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14, 2003

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
—Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

Want more http://www.bushwatch.net/bushlies.htm!

[Rebellious Republican]

20. Here are some more little gems

Bush Event
Bush Rhetoric
Reality


Children’s Hospitals

Bush touts the need to support children’s hospital at Egleston Children’s Hospital in Atlanta <3/1/01>

“This is a hospital, but it's also - it's a place full of love. And I was most touched by meeting the parents and the kids and the nurses and the docs, all of whom are working hard to save lives. I want to thank the moms who are here. Thank you very much for you hospitality…There's a lot of talk about budgets right now, and I'm here to talk about the budget. My job as the President is to submit a budget to the Congress and to set priorities, and one of the priorities that we've talked about is making sure the health care systems are funded.” – Egleston Children's Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia 3/1/01

Bush’s first budget proposed cutting grants to children’s hospitals like the one he visited by 15% ($34 million). His 2004 budget additionally proposes to cut 30% ($86 million) out of grants to children’s hospitals.




First Responders

Bush touts first responder funding in Georgia <3/27/02>

“We're dealing with first-time responders to make sure they've got what's needed to be able to respond. “ – Bush, 3/27/2002

Bush had been saying that he was proposing $3.5 billion in “new” money for first responders. However, his budget tried to cut more than $1 billion out of existing grants to local police/fire departments to fund this. Then, in August of 2002, Bush rejected $150 million for grants to state and local first responders. Bush’s decision prompted the President of the Firefighters Union to say, “President Bush, don't lionize our fallen brothers in one breath, and then stab us in the back by eliminating funding for our members to fight terrorism and stay safe.” The President of the Virginia firefighters association said, “The president has merely been using firefighters and their families for one big photo opportunity.”





Ethanol

Bush promotes ethanol at Ethanol Plant in Wentworth, South Dakota <4/24/02>

“I said when I was running for President, I supported ethanol, and I meant it. (Applause.) I support it now, because not only do I know it's important for the ag sector of our economy, it's an important part of making sure we become less reliant on foreign sources of energy.” – Bush at South Dakota Ethanol Plant 4/24/02

According to the AP, Bush’s 2004 budget proposes to eliminate funding for the bioenergy program that funds the Dakota Ethanol Plant he visited. <4/22/02>






Port Security

Bush talks of the need to fund port security at Port Elizabeth, NJ <6/24/02>

“We're working hard to make sure your job is easier, that the port is safer. The Customs Service is working with overseas ports and shippers to improve its knowledge of container shipments, assessing risk so that we have a better feel of who we ought to look at, what we ought to worry about.” – Bush, 6/24/02]

The President’s 2003 and 2004 budget provides zero for port security grants. The GOP Congress has provided only $250 million for port security grants (35% less than authorized). Additionally, in August, the President vetoed all $39 million for the Container Security Initiative which he specifically touted.






Retirement Security

Bush in Madison “calls for worker pension protection <8/7/02>

“We've got to do more to protect worker pensions.” – Bush, 8/7/02

Just four months after touting pension security, Bush’s Treasury Department announced plans to propose new rules that “would allow employers to resume converting traditional pension plans to new ‘cash balance’ plans that can lower benefits to long-serving workers. Such conversions are highly controversial. Critics contend that they discriminate against older workers in violation of federal law”



Labor

President George W. Bush takes a turn at a table saw before “thanking American Workers” on Labor Day <9/2/02>

“Our workers are the most productive, the hardest working, the best craftsmen in the world. And I'm here to thank all those who work hard to make a living here in America.” – Bush, 9/2/02

Bush’s 2003 Budget proposed a 9% ($476 million) cut to job training programs and a 2% ($8 million) cut to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Similarly, his 2004 budget proposes a $60 million cut to adult job training programs and a total elimination of the Youth Opportunities Grants, which provide job training to younger workers.






Fiscal Responsibility

Bush “Stresses Budget Discipline and Fiscal Restraint” in Iowa <9/16/02>

“One of the ways we've got to make sure that we keep our economy strong is to be wise about how we spend our money. If you overspend, it creates a fundamental weakness in the foundation of economic growth. And so I'm working with Congress to make sure they hear the message -- the message of fiscal responsibility.” Bush, 9/16/02

Less than 6 months after this pronouncement, Bush proposed a budget that would put the government more than $300 billion into deficit. As National Journal noted on 2/12/02, Bush’s own 2004 budget tables show that without Bush’s tax and budgetary proposals, the deficit deficit would decline after 2006, but with Bush’s proposals the deficit would grow indefinitely.



Veterans

Bush honors American and British veterans at a White House ceremony <11/11/02>

“These men and women are still the best of America. They are prepared for every mission we give them, and they are worthy of the standards set for them by America's veterans. Our veterans from every era are the finest of citizens. We owe them the life we know today. They command the respect of the American people, and they have our everlasting gratitude.” – Bush, 11/11/02

According to a letter sent to the President by the major veterans groups, Bush’s 2003 budget “falls $1.5 billion short” of adequately funding veterans care. .





No Child Left Behind

Bush talks up the need for education funding at the one-year anniversary of the No Child Left Behnid Act <1/8/03>

“This administration is committed to your effort. And with the support of Congress, we will continue to work to provide the resources school need to fund the era of reform.” – Bush, 1/8/03


The President’s 2003 budget – the first education budget after he signed and touted the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) - proposed to cut NCLB programs by $90 million overall, leaving these programs more than $7 billion short of what was authorized under the bill. Bush’s 2004 budget for NCLB is just 1.9% above what he proposed in 2003 - $619 less than needed to offset inflation.





Veterans

Bush touts the importance of veterans medical care at Walter Reed Army Hospital <1/17/03>

“Having been here and seeing the care that these troops get is comforting for me and Laura. We are -- should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way.” – Bush, 1/17/03

Bush's visit came on the same day that the Administration announced it is immediately cutting off access to its health care system approximately 164,000 veterans .





Medicare

Bush touts the need to adequately fund Medicare in Michigan <1/29/03>

“Within that budget I proposed last night is a substantial increase in Medicare funding of $400 billion on top of what we already spend, over the next 10 years. This is a commitment that America must make to our seniors. A reformed and strengthened Medicare system, plus a healthy dosage of Medicare spending in the budget, will make us say firmly, we fulfilled our promise to the seniors of America.” – Bush, 1/29/03

Under Bush’s proposal, there should be a roughly $40 billion increase in Medicare each year for a decade. However, Bush’s 2004 budget proposes just $6 billion – 85% less than what would be needed to meet his goal. Additionally, his budget would leave 67% of the total $400 billion pledge to be spent after 2008.


Still there is more http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm

[Wetzelbill]

14. There is plenty of double talk in politics, part of it is sending tough

messages and acting like you mean business. Unfortunately, most of this is the official indoctrinated approach to what everybody was saying at these times. What it means is that they needed to be prepared politically to deal with the threat, so they said what had to be said. Lots of bad information was being tossed around, even to most of these people, so it is easy to say what everybody else is saying. Especially, if you said otherwise you were going to be branded unpatriotic or anti-american. Now the 1998 concerns were much more valid than the more recent ones. What it all means is that Democrats where getting pressured to not wait for the inspections to finish. They needed to assert themselves on the issue but were pretty weak. Unlike Republicans, the Democrats were veritably silent, but at least they didn't exacerbate the whole Iraq folly through foolish agression.

[efhmc]

15. Interesting beginning.

[Cocoa]

16. I remember these talking points!

From about 4 months ago...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=11801&forum=DCForumID70&archive=#23

I think c_span_junky ended up getting tombstoned.

Welcome to DU! :toast:

[Duncan Grant]

18. Research your source material, please note...

http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=63

http://www.cspc.org/ (publisher of FrontPageMagazine)

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/ftcr/fs/fs000281.php3 (More about David Horowitz)

Obviously, there's two sides to every story. It's just good to know what bias each 'journalist' is bringing to the table.

Morale: Don't believe everything you read, or hear.

PS: You can edit your subject line. Please do change Demorcrats to Democrats, won't you?

[markses]

19. Ah, quoting from the Neil Boortz collection

How "liberal democrat" of you.

What happened? Did Neil tell his pack of imbeciles to attack DU again?

Here's one possible source for the list. Notice that it references Boortz. Didn't have the stomach to visit that raving lunatic's website, so i figured the google and the provenance would suffice.

http://commonsensewonder.com/mtarchives/003794.shtml

On edit: It gets better. FrontPage Magazine seems to be a David Horowitz propoganda production? That's precious.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/

Admins: The hate mailbox will almost certainly surge when this cat sends his whining "academic freedom" letter charging DU with evil censorship. :eyes:

[rjx]

30. I didn't even know who Neil Boortz was...

...and I don't ever plan to go his site!

This thread wasn't about me going hahaha, look what I have! Now defend your party.

I have been talking bad about PNAC for over a year now, since I found out about it. I have been against Bush, the administration and the war since it all started. I have come to the conclusion that the Republican party is just out to destroy everything that is good about America.

I am a member of another forum where I constantly bash Bush. Someone thought that they would be cute and posted the article directed to me to see what my response was since I am anti Republican. He was trying to rub it in my face. So I posted the article here to see what you thought about it so that I could try to come to my own conclusion about it. Then I could go back and properly respond to the attack in the other forum.

That was why I created this topic.

[markses]

31. Yeah, whatever, dawg

I don't believe a word you say.

[rjx]

35. Well its your choice

Hey, if you want I will go to the forum and dig up the threads with links so you can check them out if you want?

[blondeatlast]

36. I think most people have asked for you to do just that.

[rjx]

39. .

http://209.25.203.234/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13640&highlight=rjx

http://209.25.203.234/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24741&highlight=rjx

http://209.25.203.234/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25011&highlight=rjx

Here is the topic in question
http://209.25.203.234/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26117

[blondeatlast]

33. Okay, so throw up another topic and see who salutes.

[blondeatlast]

32. That site is marginally to the left of Freep.com.

C'mon guy, we'll let you play a little while. Just watch your step.

[JNelson6563]

22. I have a better one....

In his statement of September 16, 1998, Wolfowitz ridiculed Clinton’s policies toward Iraq and said, “Administration officials continue to claim, as Assistant Secretary Martin Indyk did in testimony to the Senate last week, that the only alternative to maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council is to send U.S. forces to Baghdad. This is wrong.”

Wolfowitz then articulated how, with patience and diplomacy, a critical mass could be reached by supporting dissidents in their eventual overthrow of the Ba’athist regime. “he key lies not in marching U.S. soldiers to Baghdad, but in helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from Saddam,” he said.

He detailed the patient commitment that such a policy would require however, such an action would deliver much stronger international support than American militarism. He said, “Our friends in the Gulf, who fear Saddam but who also fear ineffective American action against him, would see that this is a very different American policy, one that can rid them of the danger that Saddam poses. And Saddam's supporters in the Security Council–in particular France and Russia–would suddenly see a different prospect before them. Instead of lucrative oil production contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime, they would now have to calculate the economic and commercial opportunities that would come from ingratiating themselves with the future government of Iraq.”

http://www.republicons.org/view_article.asp?RP_ARTICLE_ID=717

Julie

[blondeatlast]

24. rjx, what do you think of this?

We're waiting . . .

[blondeatlast]

27. On reviewing this post, I'm more concerned about

WHY you haven't got your OWN opinion; or is it just that you can't think for yourself?

If you're gonna hang out in GDF, you've gotta be damn tough and damn GOOD.

[Catherine Vincent]

34. Why no quotes from repukelicans?

Your post is suspicious. If you were a real Democrat, you would have started your post as 'my fellow Democrats' and not just 'Democrats'. And by the way, the first response to your spam is dead on.

[rjx]

37. Democrats!...

I typed that because it was something that was important to me. To cause attention to the thread. For urgency.

I won't do it again.

[alcuno]

40. This is the same stuff we heard before the invasion.

Nothing new here. Here's my problem with Republicans. They have a tendency to repeat themselves over and over again as if we don't understand what they are saying. We get it. But repetition does not bolster the argument; it simply bores the other side.

Here's what I said before the invasion and I have not changed my position one bit NOR have I seen any evidence that I was wrong. If a presidential candidate wishes to run on the policy or preemptive war, then he/she should do so. Let the American people decide if that is the direction that they wish to take.

If, however, there is a direct threat to the United States of America, then a president has the obligation to act in defense of the country. I tended to think that Saddam had WMD's. So what. The piece missing has always been the direct threat to the United States and it's more true now than ever that that wasn't there.

The irony is that by invading Iraq, rather than proving that he was right, Bush proved that he was wrong.

[kentuck]

38. How could anyone with this many quotes be "blank" about this?

As of tomorrow, we will need a little more of your opinion or these types of posts will be deleted, is the way I read the new rules??

[0rganism]

41. Look, next time you need help figuring it out, try asking directly

You say someone dropped this pile of horse hockey on you in another forum. OK. There's a lot of that going on, and DU is a good place to go to debunk or re-contextualize these things. So what you do is you say,
---
Subject: Need help in argument re. apparent Democratic hypocrisy
Message: In another forum, someone responded to my criticism of bush by grabbing a bunch of quotes from frontpagemag.com, and I'm wondering how to go about responding to it.

(quotes + link if available)

Any help is appreciated, thanks!
---

Then, you'll get the response you say you want. People will actually come into the thread and go over them point by point in context, or go through the record of bush's lies to congress in the process of getting his pet war, or talk about the appropriateness of arguing ad hominem tu quoque. Instead, you get a bunch of otherwise reasonable people thinking you're just another dipshit like the guy you claim to be arguing with in another forum, come to disrupt this one. To you, perhaps this seems like a bizarre welcome. But there is a long history of trailor trash nutjobs coming in and doing exactly what you did to start a fight.

This is not an open discussion/argument site, it's more of a free-form think tank for leftists.

Anyway, all that doesn't matter now. Just think about this one thing, and maybe do a little searching to see if it makes since: "when did frontpagemag.com suddenly become so very interested in touting Democratic support for bush's policy? did they laud the Democrats quoted here for providing a bipartisan basis for legislative action? when did they critique the bush administration's various pathetic efforts to get the UN on the warpath?"

Next time, you'll do it differently, I'm sure.

[rjx]

42. Thank you

I apologize to everyone who thinks I was attacking them.
I will take 0rganism's advice and use it in the future. I didn't use good judgment for the title of this thread and I do apologize.

rj