Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Missing the big picture in the Clinton email thing

It's hard to take you seriously bob when your defense of every Dem is Bush was worse.

You really want me to take any of those GOP candidates seriously.. I imagine you are having trouble yourself with that group.

You do realize that the reason a lot of people bring up what you want us to just wash under the rug is because as a nation we cannot let a administration ever do that again.. If that had happened under Bill Clinton you can bet all you have you and other would e doing the same thing..
 
You really want me to take any of those GOP candidates seriously.. I imagine you are having trouble yourself with that group.

You do realize that the reason a lot of people bring up what you want us to just wash under the rug is because as a nation we cannot let a administration ever do that again.. If that had happened under Bill Clinton you can bet all you have you and other would e doing the same thing..

No, that's not why you keep bringing it up. You keep bringing it up because you have no defense for Hillary's actions and your blind hatred of conservatives means you need to find a reason to justify support for a scumbag like Clinton.
 
Show me one instance where I defended a conservative by saying Obama or Clinton or some other Dem was worse.

I think you are twisting the words a bit (BTW my computer keeps freezing up)

I have know clue if you did or didn't but all is see from the post I read of yours it really seems like you dislike Obama and Clinton a lot...

But that is not the point. That is my OPINION.

My opinion is Both are way better then the previous administration that you never want me to mention.. I know its the go to move but we cannot let it happen again.. I do in fact really dislike GWB because he is by far the one of worst president in history for what he did. OTHERS WILL DISAGREE WITH ME. I understand that.. That lie he did is way worse then any email Clinton did.. Heck Powell said he did the same thing the Clinton did. I will attempt to stop using the go to move in the future but I hate it when conservatives just shrug it off as Business because that is what it seems they do.


My questions you missed.
Do you like any of the 18 GOP candidates?
Do you want a real hawk/ Neo-Con back in power?


I am trying to be more open to any candidate..
 
No, that's not why you keep bringing it up. You keep bringing it up because you have no defense for Hillary's actions and your blind hatred of conservatives means you need to find a reason to justify support for a scumbag like Clinton.

There is not one view from the 18 GOP's that will help me and my family.. All i see is hatred from those candidates.. Look no further then Trump as all the them are falling in line like him now..
 
No, that's not why you keep bringing it up. You keep bringing it up because you have no defense for Hillary's actions and your blind hatred of conservatives means you need to find a reason to justify support for a scumbag like Clinton.

Powell did the same thing in regards to these emails... So you do hate Clinton but wont admit it..Hey she is better then that douche bag Scott walker and many others..
 
Last edited:
No, that's not why you keep bringing it up. You keep bringing it up because you have no defense for Hillary's actions and your blind hatred of conservatives means you need to find a reason to justify support for a scumbag like Clinton.

I do not think these E-mails are a big deal. Just another tactic by the conservatives to hurt another candidate and pander to their base to drum up hatred for Hillary because as normal the GOP wants to use other issues to help their candidates. It feels like the same play book over and over again.. I am sure all candidates will be doing the same thing pretty darn soon..
 
Last edited:
Powell did the same thing in regards to these emails... So you do hate Clinton but wont admit it..Hey she is better then that douche bag Scott walker and many others..

No, he didn't. Powell didn't maintain his own personal server then wipe it clean after hand picking which emails should be archived w/ the government and which should not.

I don't hate anyone. I happen to think Clinton is a horrible human being and there's literally mountains of evidence to support that belief. I also think that anyone who believes there's nothing to this scandal along with the dozens of others is simply being naive.
 
I think you are twisting the words a bit (BTW my computer keeps freezing up)

I have know clue if you did or didn't but all is see from the post I read of yours it really seems like you dislike Obama and Clinton a lot...

But that is not the point. That is my OPINION.

My opinion is Both are way better then the previous administration that you never want me to mention.. I know its the go to move but we cannot let it happen again.. I do in fact really dislike GWB because he is by far the one of worst president in history for what he did. OTHERS WILL DISAGREE WITH ME. I understand that.. That lie he did is way worse then any email Clinton did.. Heck Powell said he did the same thing the Clinton did. I will attempt to stop using the go to move in the future but I hate it when conservatives just shrug it off as Business because that is what it seems they do.


My questions you missed.
Do you like any of the 18 GOP candidates?
Do you want a real hawk/ Neo-Con back in power?


I am trying to be more open to any candidate..

I'm not twisting words at all. This is a thread about Clinton, not Bush and Clinton's misdeeds shouldn't be judged in light of what you think someone else's misdeeds were.

Interesting that in one post you go from accusing me of doing the same thing all the time to saying you have no idea if I've ever done it. That actually says a lot about your prejudice against conservatives in general and me personally. And your excuse for constantly saying Bush was worse because we can't let it happen again is nonsense. Bush can never be President again. Lefties here use it as a crutch to justify their blind hatred for anyone w/ an "R" next to their name and a get out of jail free card for any liberal's transgressions. He/she is a Republican? That person is just a puppet of the Bush machine! He/she must be stopped! Hillary's involved in another scandal? Obama tramples on the Constitution again? Well, Bush was worse!

Since I've been posting here, virtually every thread on the politics board has devolved into the same argument about Bush and the Iraq war. It's been discussed ad nauseam, people disagree about all or parts of the war and much of what happened during the Bush administration, but he's not President anymore. It's a dead horse, stop beating it.
 
Last edited:
People detest the Clinton's because they're horrible people. They lie, cheat and steal and Dems love them for it. And the fact that they are standard bearers is a greater indictment of the Dem base than any hate you think is coming from the right. It's always something with those two and sheep like you think there's nothing to any of it because you buy into the most ridiculous excuses. You just said you didn't read the Reuters article - your mind is already made up. For you. By the Clinton machine. The fact that others chose to think for themselves and not let the Clinton's, their apologists or defenders insult their intelligence doesn't mean they hate liberals, it just means they're not sheep.

Do you really think as Secretary of State, who exclusively used a private email address on an private server she personally arranged and controlled, then personally decided what emails should be handed over to the government never actually received or sent classified information? Of course you don't but since no one can currently prove she did you claim that it's no big deal and use it to justify your hatred of conservatives, even though she's being investigated by other Dems.

That's a huge reach, but I expect it from you. You say that they lie, cheat, and steal without any specific examples. Getting elected is not a process for those who aren't cutthroat. The fact that the Clintons have been in the public eye for 20+ years gives those who hate liberals a lot of ammunition.

You say I'm a sheep that blindly supports the Clintons? never mind that I said that I would reluctantly vote for her over the majority of the republican field just because she's part of the grown up party, the one that believes in science, guns not being the answer to everything, that a deity in the sky doesn't control the weather, and we shouldn't sit around and debate if women who are raped can have an abortion. She is very much corporate owned and hawkish, the things that Bernie isn't.

I know it fits the narrative to say that I'm a blind Hillary supporter. I don't particularly care for her and I think this email "scandal" is just a way to affect poll numbers.
 
I'm not twisting words at all. This is a thread about Clinton, not Bush and Clinton's misdeeds shouldn't be judged in light of what you think someone else's misdeeds were.

Interesting that in one post you go from accusing me of doing the same thing all the time to saying you have no idea if I've ever done it. That actually says a lot about your prejudice against conservatives in general and me personally. And your excuse for constantly saying Bush was worse because we can't let it happen again is nonsense. Bush can never be President again. Lefties here use it as a crutch to justify their blind hatred for anyone w/ an "R" next to their name and a get out of jail free card for any liberal's transgressions. He/she is a Republican? That person is just a puppet of the Bush machine! He/she must be stopped! Hillary's involved in another scandal? Obama tramples on the Constitution again? Well, Bush was worse!

Since I've been posting here, virtually every thread on the politics board has devolved into the same argument about Bush and the Iraq war. It's been discussed ad nauseam, people disagree about all or parts of the war and much of what happened during the Bush administration, but he's not President anymore. It's a dead horse, stop beating it.

that statement assumes that the transgressions are equal, these horrible democratic transgressions include emails not going through a government server, bill lying about getting a blowjob, etc. The single transgression that liberals tend to focus on is one that left 4,000 american families shattered, thousand more maimed, even more suffering the affects of PTSD, led to a epidemic of veteran suicide, lost 100,000 iraqi lives (those count too), did irreparable damage to our global reputation, and will cost us over 6 trillion dollars when you include the long term care of disabled vets (imagine what that money could do if invested in this country).

Are we just supposed to say "hey, the clintons maybe hid some emails from the FOIA and Bush made a case for war based on total BS at the behest of his shadowy advisors." they both f'd up, so it's equal, tie game.

People have a right to be pissed about the Iraq war for a long, long time. This is a card you can play with no expiration date, or at least until those apologist on the right finally admit that this was the most costly mistake in American history.
 
that statement assumes that the transgressions are equal, these horrible democratic transgressions include emails not going through a government server, bill lying about getting a blowjob, etc. The single transgression that liberals tend to focus on is one that left 4,000 american families shattered, thousand more maimed, even more suffering the affects of PTSD, led to a epidemic of veteran suicide, lost 100,000 iraqi lives (those count too), did irreparable damage to our global reputation, and will cost us over 6 trillion dollars when you include the long term care of disabled vets (imagine what that money could do if invested in this country).

Are we just supposed to say "hey, the clintons maybe hid some emails from the FOIA and Bush made a case for war based on total BS at the behest of his shadowy advisors." they both f'd up, so it's equal, tie game.

People have a right to be pissed about the Iraq war for a long, long time. This is a card you can play with no expiration date, or at least until those apologist on the right finally admit that this was the most costly mistake in American history.

no, it doesn't assume they are equal. It doesn't even come close to assuming anything of the sort. It clearly states they are unrelated and one is irrelevant to the other. Your assertion is complete nonsense.
 
Last edited:
People have a right to be pissed about the Iraq war for a long, long time. This is a card you can play with no expiration date, or at least until those apologist on the right finally admit that this was the most costly mistake in American history.

And the left has to come clean as well:

"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.
 
I have continued to state that I will look at all the candidates before deciding who should be in office . All political families have baggage as I have stated above. Clintons are no exception . She is no more horrible then most Politicans who all seem on the take to me. Don't be so naive to think that most politicians stretch the truth..let's see we have cristi,trump,walker,cruz, Huckabee just to name a few of the powerful gop nominees. Some are just as bad as she is if not worse and you know it....

Family coming into town. Have to go get stuff at the store.
 
Last edited:
And the left has to come clean as well:

"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.

Whoa. you have a point with some of those quotes, but come on... context here?

For example, when Al Gore said that in '02 was he making a case for invading Iraq? And Ted Kennedy said that, but voted against the resolution for use of force. (link to wiki article on the vote)

I think this is really where the case for voting "the lesser of two evils" has some merit. At least the Democratic party is sort of a check on an outright, out-of-control, militaristic government. And I'd also argue that while the Billarys, Pelosis, and "Blue Dog" Democrats voted this way, it wasn't really any sort of pro-war conviction for most of them, but a shameless pandering to the voters at the time, most of who supported the Bush Administration, and were okay with going to war one more time because "9/11 times a thousand could happen."
 
I have continued to state that I will look at all the candidates before deciding who should be in office . All political families have baggage as I have stated above. Clintons are no exception . She is no more horrible then most Politicans who all seem on the take to me. Don't be so naive to think that most politicians stretch the truth..let's see we have cristi,trump,walker,cruz, Huckabee just to name a few of the powerful gop nominees. Some are just as bad as she is if not worse and you know it....

Family coming into town. Have to go get stuff at the store.

I do not know if there are presidential candidates who possess the icy ruthlessness of Hillary Clinton.
 
Are there any progressives on this board who are even intending to vote for Clinton in the primaries?

Most of you indicate you don't much care for her.

If I were a Democrat I'd prefer she get out of the race and make way for Biden to face off for the nomination against Sanders.

Hell no.

I'd still vote for Sanders against Biden (or anyone else), but would feel a tad better about myself voting for Biden in a general election than I would Hillary.

If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm voting Green Party in the general election like I did last time.

The irritating thing is that some of the Republitard posters here are too dumb to understand this point. I'm not attacking them because I support Billary, but because they have absolutely NO GROUND to stand on to attack her over the email thing, given their history of support for the Bush Administration, Iraq War, and every other god-awful thing that happened from 2001-2009.
 
Whoa. you have a point with some of those quotes, but come on... context here?

For example, when Al Gore said that in '02 was he making a case for invading Iraq? And Ted Kennedy said that, but voted against the resolution for use of force. (link to wiki article on the vote)

I think this is really where the case for voting "the lesser of two evils" has some merit. At least the Democratic party is sort of a check on an outright, out-of-control, militaristic government. And I'd also argue that while the Billarys, Pelosis, and "Blue Dog" Democrats voted this way, it wasn't really any sort of pro-war conviction for most of them, but a shameless pandering to the voters at the time, most of who supported the Bush Administration, and were okay with going to war one more time because "9/11 times a thousand could happen."

81 Dems in the House and 29 in the Senate voted for the resolution. Pelosi also voted "nay" for the record. "Lesser of two evils?" I think we already have what you suggest: "an outright, out-of-control, militaristic government." And it matters not which party runs things. They are all "part of the same hypocrisy," to quote Michael Corelone in GF II.
 
And the left has to come clean as well:

"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.

yes, there are hawkish democrats. I see that Bill Clinton was mentioned there, he had 8 years in office where he could have invaded Iraq, but he chose not to, why?

Of course we isolated Iraq and imposed sanctions, we worked with the UN to get weapons inspectors out there. There is a big difference between that and twisting evidence to promote a war you always wanted to have. the blame for this one goes squarely on those who met on 9/12/2001 and started talking about invading Iraq, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfled.

there is no passing the buck here, those guys own this one.
 
no, it doesn't assume they are equal. It doesn't even come close to assuming anything of the sort. It clearly states they are unrelated and one is irrelevant to the other. Your assertion is complete nonsense.

you don't say they're equal but then you don't say they're not equal. you reference transgressions of democrats and juxtapose those against bad behavior by democrats, they are far from equal.

You then say that it's a dead horse and stop beating it. this is one you can't just sweep under the rug, this is an atrocity, not just a simple harmless mistake. there are hudreds of thousand of lives that are ruined by the decision to invade Iraq. Should we all just shrug our shoulders and say "hey, it's in the past, no need to dwell on it, just let it go?"
 
Back
Top