U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 02-29-2012, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
5,744 posts, read 2,889,445 times
Reputation: 3806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
Do you really believe many dems did NOT believe Iraq did Not have WMDs with quotes like these:
I don't think Dems or Repubs cared much about WMD's. Money has no political affiliation.


"In 2006, the investment portfolios of 151 current members—more than a quarter of Congress—had between $78.7 million and $195.5 million invested in companies that received major defense contracts (over $5 million)."

Lawmakers with the most money invested in companies with DoD contracts include

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass), with up to $38,209,020;
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), with $49,140,000;
Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC), with $37,105,000;
Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis), with $7,612,653;
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif), with $6,260,000;
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich), with $8,360,000;
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa), with $2,000,002;
Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis), with $5,800,000;
Rep. Kenny Ewell Marchant (R-Texas), with $1,163,231;
and Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), with up to $5,000,000.

14. Congress Invested in Defense Contracts | Project Censored
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-29-2012, 01:28 PM
 
16,062 posts, read 5,036,779 times
Reputation: 3882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
Do you really believe many dems did NOT believe Iraq did Not have WMDs with quotes like these:

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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

"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 th! e 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

"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."
- 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


Please note the dates of all these quotes. Many were long before Bush ever came onto the scene. Othere were from long time respected dem senators, some served on the Senate Intelligence Committee with access to CIA briefings BEFORE Bush was President.
OUCH!!!!! This one is going twist some panties!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 01:37 PM
 
Location: North America
14,279 posts, read 4,744,328 times
Reputation: 5149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
Some just like to make fools of themselves.

I posted that the Authority to Invade Iraq was done under a dem controlled Congress.

And that Bush could NOT have invaded if the dems did not want to.

Then we get these "geniuses" posting. (See above)

"Of the legislation introduced by Congress in response to President Bush's requests,[6] S.J.Res. 45 sponsored by Sen. Daschle & Sen. Lott"

"Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[2][7] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002,"

So guess who was the Senate MAJORITY LEADER IN 2002,
"Thomas Andrew "Tom" Daschle

However, on June 6, 2001, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont announced in that he was leaving the Senate Republican caucus to become an independent and to caucus with Democrats;[15] this once again returned control of the body to the Democrats and Daschle again became Majority Leader. Democratic losses in the November 2002 elections returned the party to the minority in the Senate in January 2003 and Daschle once more reverted to being Minority Leader.
United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote Republican 48 1 0 Democratic 29 21 0 Independent 0 1 0 TOTALS 77 23 0


Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The repubs did NOT have a majority to pass the bill by themselves. The dems COULD have blocked passage.

In fact, as we see today if Harry Reid does Not want a bill to be voted on he can block it.

Daschle not only voted for it HE co-sponsored it.

As Senate Majority leader he could have kept the bill from ever coming up for a vote, just as Reid does today.


ooops, yourself.

How does crow taste?
The House was controlled by the (R) party, Senate by (D) Party, with a caviat: Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. He announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving that party a one-seat advantage and changing control of the Senate back to the Democrats. Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Trent Lott announced on December 20, 2002, that he would not continue as Republican leader in the 108th Congress. William Frist was elected Republican leader on Dec. 23, 2002, and began service on January 7, 2003.

Bush misrepresented facts to get us into Iraq. Nobody vetted the information.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 01:46 PM
 
16,062 posts, read 5,036,779 times
Reputation: 3882
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp View Post
Bush misrepresented facts to get us into Iraq. Nobody vetted the information.
Not even Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi or any others in the late 90's.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Texas
12,686 posts, read 5,751,101 times
Reputation: 5777
Smile Votes count a lot more than quotes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
OUCH!!!!! This one is going twist some panties!

Not nearly as much as this:





File:H.J.Res. 114 Iraq Resolution Votes October 2002.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 02:10 PM
 
7,573 posts, read 2,682,861 times
Reputation: 4286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli View Post
He attended Georgia Southwestern College and Georgia Institute of Technology and received a Bachelor of Science degree in physics from the United States Naval Academy in 1946.


Read more: What degree did Jimmy Carter earn


Carter...is a DOLT.
Seriously? Answers.com?

My brother is a PHD in physics and has met Carter and ate lunch with him when he was President. Carter is a PHD and was on the same level as the other PHD's in the room according to my brother. So there's that.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 02:17 PM
 
7,573 posts, read 2,682,861 times
Reputation: 4286
Quote:
Originally Posted by badhornet View Post
He didnt take as many vacations
I think you're referring to Bush, but actually Bush set a record for first year presidents with the vacation time he took. Al Qaeda was planning 9/11 and he was usually on vacation that entire year.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 02:44 PM
 
7,816 posts, read 4,635,725 times
Reputation: 6108
I am aware that many Democrats believed there were weapons of mass destruction. However, I also know that many weren't fooled. I was one of those who weren't. I carefully followed the issue, and I thought there was no compelling evidence for their existence. I was right. I don't even have a top secret security clearance, but somehow I was more clued in than those who were snowed by Cheney's hack job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
Do you really believe many dems did NOT believe Iraq did Not have WMDs with quotes like these:

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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

"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 th! e 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

"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."
- 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


Please note the dates of all these quotes. Many were long before Bush ever came onto the scene. Othere were from long time respected dem senators, some served on the Senate Intelligence Committee with access to CIA briefings BEFORE Bush was President.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 02:53 PM
 
Location: Northern CA
12,775 posts, read 4,059,166 times
Reputation: 4159
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger View Post
I think you're referring to Bush, but actually Bush set a record for first year presidents with the vacation time he took. Al Qaeda was planning 9/11 and he was usually on vacation that entire year.
Difference is, that his vacations were working vacations at his ranch in Texas, Which cost very little compared to the King n Queen in office today.
However, I now know that he did orchestrate 9/11, that along with the Patriot Act, and paying for Medicare Prescriptions has changed my opinion of him drastically. With that said, he was still better than what we have now. The gov't against the people will continue, unless we are smart enough to elect Ron Paul, but we aren't, so Marshall Law and Fema Camps are just around the corner.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 03:17 PM
 
4,013 posts, read 1,542,385 times
Reputation: 2073
Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn View Post
No. In fact, his failure to grapple with our three biggest future financial issues (Medicare, Social Security, and the military-industrial complex budget) while in office only becomes more painful as time goes on. Instead, he allowed most of his administration to be derailed by expensive and ultimately fruitless sideshows such as the Iraq war.
I agree with the above.

I was not all hunky dory about him (just like Obama actually) but my opinion hasn't changed about him. He was mediocre IMO and I did not like the Patriot Act and I did not like that he was so gung ho about going to Iraq. I am an independent so don't care what house/senate dems voted for the war, I dont' like that or them and what they did. For me, it was Bush's war, he could not have brought it up in the first place so the blame lay at his feet and it is my biggest gripe with him.

I do think he did a great job on handling our defense after 9/11 though (other than Iraq which I feel was unnecessary and caused us to be the center of more bad feelings with many in the Middle East) but I also feel that he was not a strong leader politically after 9/11 if that makes sense. Basically he could have done more to stop the party rhetoric and focus on us getting things done as a country. I feel that 9/11 could have been and should have been a catalyst towards making us come together more as a country and I feel that Bush's focus on Iraq took away from that sort of political reconciliation that could have occurred.

I do not think he was the worst president by far. I also feel that he was very personable and seemed like a genuine person unlike many of my liberal friends who thought he was the devil. My views on him have not changed and I don't anticipate them to. I don't really have a solid opinion yet on Obama's presidency except to say he has also been mediocre so far, but I do feel that if he gets a second term he will be (hopefully) a better leader and learn when to compromise and when not to compromise. I think this past year he has gotten much better after his frustrating first 2 years. Even though it is an election year and people could expect that, I honestly did not and I feel we are seeing more of the real Obama and I hope that if he is re-elected he will continue to be himself instead of trying to do everything that everyone wants because sometimes someone can't get their way.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top