Senate Democrats urging Clinton to attack Iraq over WMD

[ra]

This is what is so surprising about this investigation...it is not just Democrats, but there are senior Republicans that are wondering if they were duped by the Administration and/or bad intelligence as well.

What investigation?   Bad intel is not the issue here.

There are Democratic politicians saying the the war was based on a WMD lie invented by the Bush administration.  Then, there's a 1998 memo signed by senior Democrat senators on the Armed Serviced Committee saying that they believe Iraq poses a WMD threat.  

Sen. John McCain, R-AZ made these two statements recently:
"I think that it's very appropriate for the Congress to have hearings on the whole issue."

"I'm satisfied that Saddam Hussein not only had weapons of mass destruction, but if we had not overthrown him, he would have went back to pursuing the development of weapons of mass destruction."
 

OK, how does this support the Democrats 2-faced approach to this war?

[midnight Target]

Once again.... who are these 2 faced Dems??????

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Once again.... who are these 2 faced Dems??????

Chis Dodd appears to be one.

From the UK - Middle East Online -

WASHINGTON - Senior US lawmakers from both major political parties Sunday defended their support for the war on Iraq despite doubts about the intelligence used to justify the US-led assault.

.....

He and Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut however said a congressional investigation may be needed to determine whether US intelligence sources hyped information regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify the war.

"Obviously it's going to be important for us to get the answer to the question of whether or not those weapons were there," Dodd said.

In that quote, the He is John MCCain.
Is he backtracking on h is statements in 1998 or is he just jumpoing on the bad intel bandwagon?  I can't tell.

Still checking on others MT.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by ra
What investigation?   Bad intel is not the issue here.

Com'on Ra...don't be obtuse.  Republicans and Democrats are calling for hearings that will investigate why WMDs have not yet been found when the Administration was using certainty of their existence, based on intelligence, as the primary reason to invade Iraq.  Have the hearings been scheduled...no.  Have Senate committees begun to investigate the intel...yes...Sen Warner, chair of the Armed Services Committee has asked the CIA to send "detailed information on the intelligence that led to the agency's assessment of Iraq's weapons program" for the committee to review (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/03/sprj.irq.main/index.html)

OK, how does this support the Democrats 2-faced approach to this war? [/B]

Ummm...it doesn't support it...it supports that it appears that Republicans are also being 2-faced.  There are Dems on the record saying that they believed that Saddam had WMDs and now there are Dems saying that there should be hearings to investigate the why WMDs were not found.  There are Pubs on the record saying that they believe that Saddam had WMDs and now there are Pubs saying that there should be hearings to investigate why WMDs were not found.

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Once again.... who are these 2 faced Dems??????

Here's an interesting aspect to John Kerry who also signed the 1998 letter.

On Feb. 23, 1998, as then-President Bill Clinton made Iraqi regime change an issue, Sen. Kerry said the following:

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East.  It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

But, now, without actually bringing up specifically WMD, Kerry says the following:

''What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States.''

     ''I believe it deeply, that it will take a new president of the United States, declaring a new day for our relationship with the world, to clear the air and turn a new page on American history.'' he said.


I would call that two faced MT.  Wouldn't you?




Ihaven't got any more time to look up senatorial flip flops but, MY, your point is well taken and we should be careful to ascribe positions to those that actually have taken that position.  But, I submit that the Democratic party, as a group, is looking to the WMD issue and trying to make an issue out of it with GWB.  I don't think they can do that legitimately.

[Montezuma]

If Clinton thought he could get the support he probably would have invaded Iraq, but that would have been 'nation building'.

[midnight Target]

Sorry Syz... and you know that the point was not made with your quote.

Kerry may have called for a regime change in 98, but he also called for one in 2003. The only difference is that he called for 2 regime changes in 2003. Not 2-faced at all.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Montezuma
If Clinton thought he could get the support he probably would have invaded Iraq, but that would have been 'nation building'.

Invading Iraq is 'nation building'? How can this be? During the presidential campaign, Dubya said he would not be doing any nation building. It must be something else.

[ra]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Once again.... who are these 2 faced Dems??????

I am referring to the entire Democrat congress.  One question mark would have sufficed.

[midnight Target]

Oh I see.

So we are generalizing.

Sorry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Sorry Syz... and you know that the point was not made with your quote.

Kerry may have called for a regime change in 98, but he also called for one in 2003. The only difference is that he called for 2 regime changes in 2003. Not 2-faced at all.

If he believed there were WMD in 1998, and supported  military action as a result, and now opposes a president who gave us military action to get the WMD's Kerry knows were there, then that's being politically two faced in  my book

Nah Nah Nah!

And what about the quote from Chris Dodd?  Huih, what about that?



You flyin tonight's SquadOps?

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Invading Iraq is 'nation building'? How can this be? During the presidential campaign, Dubya said he would not be doing any nation building. It must be something else.

You are eggsakly right Sandy!  Hurray for you!

Iraq was not NATION BUILDING!  It was NATION LIBERATION or better put, NATION REBUILDIING!


Keep tryin' though.  It's entertaining!:D

[midnight Target]

Squad Ops...

Gonna try. Lots of honey do's and packing to do. On the road for a week starting tomorrow.

DC and Northeast Oregon.

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Squad Ops...

Gonna try. Lots of honey do's and packing to do. On the road for a week starting tomorrow.

DC and Northeast Oregon.

GL on your trip!
I look for ya tonight!

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Did you see a signature? Hell, did you see the official letter head?

Nevermind that it's SEVEN years old. It's irrelevant. Supposedly, Saddam Hussein represented a heinous threat capable of striking U.S. troops within 45 minutes and evidently he's had this capability for SEVEN years!

The horror!


For the record... I'm not a democrat nor am I pro-democrat. I'm anti-GOP.

Yes of course it a fake.. The powerful politicans jyst let their nmaes be used on that dicument even though they did not support it...

Not only is it fake according to you, but it's also irellevant just like you are gonna say for any WMD evidence that comes out of iraq...