Dems Speak da Truth

They just don't mean it. Lest we forget (the dems sure have, even their own words) how we came to this fateful place and time. hat tip mdd

"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

"[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 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 mandate 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 seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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 alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (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. "[W]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 has 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.

Comments

[lowandslow]

Thanks for gathering these quotes. I'm going to start using them.

[Lew Waters]

Don't forget Hillary's justification for her vote to go to war with Iraq:

"No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

And, when they weren't found, after the six months long "rush to war,"

"The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared."

April 21, 2004

[Steamboat McGoo]

I've copied the comments into a text file for future use. Thanks.

I bet the Dems just hate LexisNexis. We're supposed to "forget" what they said in the past, like good li'l workers.

[Abu Daboo Doo al Bedrocki]

George Orwell's brilliant work, '1984', had the idea that there would be people like Winston Smith who work to 'correct' newspapers and remove anything that no longer served the purposes of the party. Winston made sure that the party members who were in favor stayed so, by correcting their mistakes and by erasing anyone who was now 'persona non-grata', like Goldstein.

Our current press doesn't need somebody like Winston Smith, they just refuse to ask any questions of their party (the Democrats) that might show the public the true two-faced lying of their representatives in government, media and education.

[IrishLad317]

Pamela... Do one on the call for more troops! Many of them now calling the "Surge" an "escalation" and saying it won't work, were, not long ago, saying how we need more troops. I'm sure you can find the relevent quotes. You're pretty good at this blogging thing. Love ya still!

[JonQuixote]

.

Check out the link to these Democrappers, on video, making these statements, and urging eventual military action against Saddam, to realize ClintonCo's policy of "regime change" in Iraq:

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

Keep up the great work, Pamela...

.

[daryl]

NO surprise Winston Smith got into deep trouble. He just wasn't up to the doublethink job like today's Copperhead Media.

But here's the skinny on what the Liberal Leadership is REALLY thinking.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy, D-Vt lets th cat out of the bag:

Let’s Do It Again?

http://epaper.investors.com/daily/skins/ibd/navigator.asp

INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY Jan 23, 2007

Iraq: Democrats have been careful to couch their language regarding retreat in Iraq. But y about what Congress’ new leaders want: another Vietnam.

Asked on CNN on Sunday if he wanted Congress to cut off funding for our forces in Iraq, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy remarked:
“Yes, ultimately, I do. I mean, this is the only way we stopped Vietnam. We had a lot of people who said they were opposed to it, but when we finally had a vote in April 1975, a key vote on the power of the purse, that’s what stopped it.”
Indeed it was. The heavy Democratic majority elected in the wake of Watergate cut off all military funding to South Vietnam, breaking the promises of Henry Kissinger’s Paris Peace Accords.
It’s remarkable that Leahy should mention April 1975, because that is exactly when the fall of Saigon came, and when the world witnessed the horrific spectacle of the desperate, betrayed South Vietnamese people crowding onto U.S. helicopters to escape the bloodthirsty communists.
Leahy seems to be suffering amnesia about those widely forgotten events. He scoffed at those who warned, “ ‘Boy, if we pulled out, the whole thing is going to collapse and we’re going to have the Chinese communists storming ashore in America.’ Well, of course, none of that happened,” Leahy said.
In fact, the recently deceased President Gerald Ford warned Leahy and his fellow Democrats in Congress at the time that “American unwillingness to provide adequate assistance to allies fighting for their lives could seriously affect our credibility throughout the world as an ally.”
But the Democrats — then as now — were more interested in embarrassing Republicans than in defending America, or keeping our word to friends of liberty in a place under threat from dark forces.
The disaster in Vietnam was followed by other disasters: the fall of the Shah and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran, as well as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
In the case of Iraq, we can be sure that we will have plenty more Islamofascist terrorists “storming ashore in America” if we lose there — even if they do so not in some Normandy-style invasion, as wars were fought in the last century, but as sleeper cells, using forged documents, then blending in with other Americans . . . until the time comes to strike.
More scandalous than Leahy, however, are his opportunistic GOP allies, who will vote this week for the Democrats’ resolution to condemn the president’s revised Iraq strategy and troop surge. On CBS on Sunday, Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, when he wasn’t fielding preposterous softball questions about running for president (Chuck who?), was regurgitating the Democrats’ talking points, calling Iraq “a sectarian civil war.”
Hagel’s feeble pretext for crossing his own party’s president in time of war?
“If you keep this bottled up by not talking about it,” according to the senator, “what could happen is some kind of cutoff” — as if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s Democratic Congress wouldn’t cut off funding yesterday if they could override a presidential veto.
Hagel and fellow party dissidents, such as Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine and newly announced presidential candidate Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, should be told something loud and clear:
Helping Democrats cause another Vietnam will be nothing they can ever be proud of.