Offered w/o Comment
 

Have fun...
http://www.whitehouse.org/kids/palm/index.asp

It's interesting to me that this kind of juvenile humor (and I use that word strictly without prejudice) appeals to the self-appointed intelligentsia of the Liberal wing. Libs are innately attuned to the sophisticated nuance required in all political situations and are not susceptible to "simplistic" expression - just ask 'em. Only the benighted, neanderthal conservatives are supposed to be taken in by crude caricature, so the theory goes.

Well, I guess this stuff further belies the Lib's tacit claim to intellectual superiority.

JP

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 [the USA], 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

"[W]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 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 invigorated 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, December 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 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

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons
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

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???

Boy! Talk about two tongued philosophy

OK, it's not fun any more.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1076439433.jpg

I've got pages of simliar statements by those on the Left side of the Aisle, as well as by foreign leaders and their representatives and mouthpieces. It won't matter. Prove it to 'em and they still won't believe it. Crap, Operation Iraqi Freedom is still "unilateral" action to the Angry Left (who, though they profess to care so much about not hurting others' feelings or self esteem, cavalierly discard the efforts and sacrifices of our allies to make a crass, false political point).

That, and the newly redefined term "lie", which from the dawn of the English language up until very very recently required deliberate deceit with knowledge that what you were saying was untrue.

Granted, "lie" was tortured to mean whatever defenders of perjurers wanted it to mean for eight years of the Interregnum, but it's proven a resilient little word. It still requires deliberate untruth expressed as fact; this is why we have a different word for "mistake."

JP

Is that what is is? :D

Overpaid...U..U...are good

Well, Paul's list is over at www.snopes.com (full link below) - a lot of that stuff is out of context and a lot of it is in speeches etc which ALSO denounce a unilateral war.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

If Iraqi Freedom had, by any definition been a unilateral war, I'd give the tiniest ***** about denunciations of unilateral action. However, given the state of the facts, such allegations are flagrant, deliberate and empirically disprovable untruths -- i.e. LIES.
You want to perpetuate 'em for you own agenda, nobody can stop you, and you can delude yourself that you're lying for some higher purpose, but you're lying, plain and simple.

JP

ARGHHH! That's NUKE-YOU-LER!

NUKE-YOU-LER!!!!

Got it?*


*That was a joke. No social commentary implied or offered. Have a nice day! :)

Whatever happened going to war ONLY under the situation of

"Clear and Present Threat"????

Saddam wasn't a threat to the US any more than North Korea, Libya, Iran, etcc....

Why aren't we at war with these nations. In plain english so all of us can understand, Bush went to war b/c it was personal, to finish what his dad started, to revenge his dad's assasination attempt in 91 (?)
sept. 11 only added to the fire....Bush wanted Iraq no matter what, it was a pre-meditated war, preconceived, pre-planned, there was no imminent threat...and US soldiers and thousands of innocent Iraqi people have been killed, and what for? in the name of liberation and freedom.
that's 100% USDA Grade A certified Bullshchit......it's just sad so many dems bought into the whole thing in the first place. and now there's so much hypocricy, finger pointing, go figure.

Well, it wasn't unilateral JP, but it was near as dammit. Only US, UK and Australia committed troops, and - if the decision to invade was made on a democratic basis, it wouldn't have happened. Remember barely half the people in the US thought it was a good idea, let alone half the countries in the world (or even more impossible, half the people in the world).

I'll put it another way - if a collection of other countries, not including the US, had initiated an invasion that the US didn't approve of, you'd be screaming blue murder. You shouldn't be so surprised that the war makes people angry.

Finally, I probably should have said "pre-emptive" rather than "unilateral". But never mind.

"Clear and Present Danger", though catchy, was not a prerequisite to committing troops. Can't remember when it actually has been, but I'm willing to be educated. One last time for those in the cheap seats -- Bush never claimed there was an imminent threat. In fact, if you read the text of his address, he said it would be a colossal mistake to wait until it was imminent. I type that for the 1000th time, like it's going to make a difference. The liberalist (new word?) rags in the US have had to issue retractions for their reckless claims that he'd said that (on page A24, in 6 point text; whereas their initial slander was front page, bold, above the fold). Strange silence from the NYT on the matter, though.

Cam-
Poland committed troops -- in fact, Polish special forces took key ports in the first few hours of the operation. Italy committeed troops (God bless Berlusconi). Strange that the bedrocks of democracy committed troops early -- many, many other nations committed intel. resources and logistical support. Turkey would've if we'd paid their ransom.

A collection of other countries has waged "war" elsewhere, w/o US screaming bloody murder (or much of anything else). The EU operated in the former Balkans for years w/o the US getting upset.

Pre-emption is a tenet of international law that only those who are against pre-emption in a given circumstance b!tch about. In fact, on a smaller level, if the US finds counterfeit operations in Canada (or Mexico, for example) it is legal to interdict such operations w/o prior approval of the host nation. Typically, for reasons of international comity, coordination is undertaken, but there's no prerequisite.

I'm not surprised others are angry -- but their stated "reasons" for anger fall apart; unless it's stated bluntly -- "you need a permission slip from us to do what you believe necessary to do, and you didn't get one, therefore, we're petulant." The end result is blathering condemnation of liberation of 25 million people, and a sea change in the region's attitudes.

The pre-emption actually took place with the passage of the Iraq Freedom Act -- in 1998, which passed by 98-2 (if memory serves -- feel free to Google me wrong) authorizing action by the United States to depose Hussein and liberate Iraq w/o further approval by the Congress. But everybody, and I mean everybody, knew Clinton didn't have the stones to take action, so it was taken as a symbolic, pro forma move. Bush went to Congress AGAIN, though he didn't have to, and received near-unanimous approval for action.

Cowtown -- you're swimming against the stream, brother. :D
But I feel your pain -- like debunking every fatuous, convenient-yet-deliberately-ignorant-of-fact claim made on these threads that I debunk or see debunked, only to have such claim made again, by the same proponent, sometimes seconds later.

JP