The Democrats have developed a keen sense of "morality? They have banned John Edwards from speaking at all at the convention because of his extramarital affair with another woman, and lying about it! They chose Bill Clinton to speak instead???
Wait a minute, how short’s your memory? Wasn’t Ted Kennedy having a Grand Speech, too? 
This belongs in the Off Topic forum guys.
Huh? You gotta luv morality that neglect the issues of starting a war based on a pack of lies that kills tens of thousands. What’s the greater evil? I’ll take the guy who can’t keep his member in his pants anytime.
-Brian
Jerry Hansen said:
The Democrats have developed a keen sense of "morality? They have banned John Edwards from speaking at all at the convention because of his extramarital affair with another woman, and lying about it! They chose Bill Clinton to speak instead???(http://www.lscdata.com/users/blueregal/_forumfiles/bunny_anim.gif)
And then the others choose a gentleman who cheated on his first wife to speak at their convention! Hard to believe.
Jerry,
one important difference. John Edwards must have actually ‘had SEX’ with the woman involved in the extra-marital affair. Remember those immortal words from the other person - “I never had sex with that woman.”
Jon Radder said:Agreed. Where's Bob the Mover?
This belongs in the Off Topic forum guys.
Brian Donovan said:
Huh? You gotta luv morality that neglect the issues of starting a war based on a pack of lies that kills tens of thousands. What's the greater evil? I'll take the guy who can't keep his member in his pants anytime.-Brian
In October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force if necessary to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq, “Poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States …[by] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.” These assessments were echoed by foreign intelligence agencies from countries that included Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia, and by the United Nations Security Council in more than a dozen different Security Council resolutions between 1990 and the year 2000.
For the record: Here’s a partial list of what didn’t make it out of Iraq before the OIF invasion: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents, chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin, radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers, artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents, etc. Assuming Irag had no WMD because only small caches were recovered after Operation Iraqi Freedom began is perilously flawed logic. There is substantial evidence that Saddam exported most of his WMD capability to Iran and Syria before OIF – which may, eventually, find its way into a U.S. urban center, should U.S. political, and consequently, military resolve wither.
So I didn’t.
Charles Suggs said:
Jerry Hansen said:
The Democrats have developed a keen sense of "morality? They have banned John Edwards from speaking at all at the convention because of his extramarital affair with another woman, and lying about it! They chose Bill Clinton to speak instead???(http://www.lscdata.com/users/blueregal/_forumfiles/bunny_anim.gif)
And then the others choose a gentleman who cheated on his first wife to speak at their convention! Hard to believe.
Are you referring to the Republican running for President who cheated on his first wife? This is the problem I have with right wingers. Morality is only an issue to be applied to Democrats. Their “boys” get a free pass. I remember when Democratic Speaker of the House Jim Wright was run out of Congress for getting a deal on a condo. A few years later it is revealed Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich collected an advance around a million dollars to write a book that was never written. Nothing happens. Ralph
Ken Brunt said:Brian Donovan said:
Huh? You gotta luv morality that neglect the issues of starting a war based on a pack of lies that kills tens of thousands. What's the greater evil? I'll take the guy who can't keep his member in his pants anytime.-Brian
In October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force if necessary to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq, “Poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States …[by] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.” These assessments were echoed by foreign intelligence agencies from countries that included Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia, and by the United Nations Security Council in more than a dozen different Security Council resolutions between 1990 and the year 2000.For the record: Here’s a partial list of what didn’t make it out of Iraq before the OIF invasion: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents, chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin, radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers, artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents, etc. Assuming Irag had no WMD because only small caches were recovered after Operation Iraqi Freedom began is perilously flawed logic. There is substantial evidence that Saddam exported most of his WMD capability to Iran and Syria before OIF – which may, eventually, find its way into a U.S. urban center, should U.S. political, and consequently, military resolve wither.
Great, I’ll conceed the fact that crap did not get out of Iraq, that’s a good thing. Now what are we going to do about all the similar materials in all the other mid-east, far-east, and former communist territories. Do we have enough soldiers to take care of that too? I will not give Bush a “pass” on one of the biggest blunders in modern foriegn policy because we got rid of a minor tin-plated despot. It will take years to repair the damage caused by the current administration.
Still not sure who to vote for to replace Bush but I’m very happy of two facts…One, Bush is leaving, Two, Hillary is not an option!
Whoa, dude…easy on the caffeine…Bush didn’t authorize the war, Congress did…
Ken Brunt said:Are you trying to say this wasn't Bush's "baby"? Bush provided the false intelligence. Congress was controlled by the Republicans. They followed their "leader". Just another example of trying to "pass the buck". Ralph
Whoa, dude........easy on the caffeine............Bush didn't authorize the war, Congress did........
No Ralph, Bush didn’t provide the false intelligence. The intelligence communities from the US and 5 other nation’s provided it. And congress had access to all that intelligence.
Bush musta been pretty damn good to scam 535 members of congress.
In March of 2003, the president and a bipartisan congress insisted we needed to invade Iraq in order to thwart Saddam’s plans to develop WMD and outsource it to Jihadi surrogates. The nuclear WMD risk was, and remains, a perilous impending threat, though significantly reduced with the removal of Saddam’s regime. But seasoned intelligence and national security analysts would argue that our ultimate objective – to establish an Islamic democracy in the cradle of the Islamic world in order to protect our vital national interests – is as critical, if not more so today, as it was in 2003.
As estimated, there were no large stockpiles of WMD remaining but, contrary to the Democrats’ doubletalk, WMD were found, including 50 deployed Al Samoud 2 missiles, various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles, 2 large propellant casting chambers, 1,700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents, chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin, artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents, and 224.6 kg of expired growth media. Discovered remnants of Saddam’s nuclear WMD program included 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium, 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers, and 1000 radioactive components and elements – all of which was ferried from Iraq to the United States.
In 1998, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Iraq Liberation Act. That Act stated, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” This legislation passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate without a single vote in opposition.
Albert Gore: “Saddam’s ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat … to the security of the world.”
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: “We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. … Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk 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.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: “[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983.”
Harry Reid: “The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. … The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein’s near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all. [Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction.”
Dick Durbin: “One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that…Iraq…may acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [Saddam’s] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening.”
John Kerry: “If you don’t believe…Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.”
John Edwards: “Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it’s just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.”
Nancy Pelosi: “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.”
Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: “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.”
Just because everyone has forgotten history, doesn’t change it.
and after 9/11:
After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years – you know, the years of appeasement when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to take out Osama bin Ladin were ignored, as was the presence of an al-Qa’ida terrorist cell in the U.S. – which reared its head on 9/11.
In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear about the threat of Iraq’s WMD capability.
Ted Kennedy: “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Harry Reid: “Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion.”
John Kerry: “I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. … Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. … These weapons represent an unacceptable threat.”
Hillary Clinton: “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, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa’ida 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. … I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security.”
Carl Levin: “We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein…is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Jay Rockefeller: “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons. We have always underestimated the progress Saddam has been able to make in the development of WMD.”
Joe Biden: “We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability.”
Evan Bayh: “I support the President. The lesson we learned since 9/11 is that we can’t wait to be attacked again, particularly with WMD.”
Al Gore: “We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Bob Graham: “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.”
Nancy Pelosi: “Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that.”
Before you get too busy blaming Bush, you might want to check this out: http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
John
John McGuyer said:
Before you get too busy blaming Bush, you might want to check this out: http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmvJohn
Many share the blame…including Democrats. People wanted revenge. Bush played into that with his “your either with us, or against us.”
Talk against the “war” was labeled “treason”.
The buck stops at the top. The man responsible for the false information and for pushing the effort.
Jay Rockefeller…his family is one of the major shareholders in the Federal Reserve.
Joe Biden…voted with Republicans making it very difficult for individuals to file bankruptcy right before the financial bust they knew was coming. Lose a family member to sickness and ring up massive medical bills and you are screwed. But if you are K-Mart, you can roll out of bankruptcy and buy Sears six months later.
Ralph
Where’s Barry Goldwater when we need him?
Nuke 'em to the dark ages.
What “false information” are you refering too? Let’s see some example.
“In 1998, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Iraq Liberation Act. That Act stated, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” This legislation passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate without a single vote in opposition.”
Seems to me he just grabbed the buck someone else decided to pass…
Ken Brunt said:
What "false information" are you refering too? Let's see some example.“In 1998, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Iraq Liberation Act. That Act stated, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” This legislation passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate without a single vote in opposition.”
Seems to me he just grabbed the buck someone else decided to pass…
See an example? It’s been documented for several years now. You are well read. I’m sure you’ve read the same stories I did.
I can support efforts to remove a President from office by not voting for him or his supporters. It does not mean I support a violent act against him.
But you are 100% correct. We are surrounded by many hypocrites. They didn’t speak against it until it was “safe” and “popular” to do so.
Ralph