PDA

View Full Version : Congressional Reports, Thank God for record keeping!!!



FREEBIRD
02-16-04, 07:28 PM
Thank Heaven for the Congressional Record






Some people have a very short memory


"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 (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), 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 invigorated 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,
December 5, 2001


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
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 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


"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." - 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


SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR
UNNECESSARILY!
Do I need to say anything More???
FREEBIRD

(__*__) thats for who ever took my attachment off!!!!

thedrifter
02-16-04, 08:21 PM
Thanks Mike......LOL....

Sorry....We have too many underage viewers...running around....

All those who would like to see the pic can always email freebird through the website......


Sempers,

Roger

namgrunt
02-16-04, 08:42 PM
You pegged it, Freebird.
You may have noticed the same thing happened back during the Vietnam war.
John Kerry used an interesting phrase during his anti-war days. He called Vietnam "Nixon's War." I guess it suited his purpose to ignore the fact that it was JFK (a personal acquaintance) who first sent advisers there, and LBJ who sent the first Marine battalions for combat purposes. Neither is Republican.
Richard M. Nixon is the one who ENDED the war, but that doesn't matter to left wingers. It became called his war by design. He wasn't a Democrat.

Semper Fi!

FREEBIRD
02-17-04, 09:49 PM
Thanks Namgrunt, but for the record, I am not a democrat or a republican, so which ever don't matter to me, just wanted the facts out where some people who close their eyes can see for a change that some things aint the way they seem!!! As far as VietNam, Ive said it before but to me its worth repeating.....
WE could have won that if only we had a goverment with enough backbone to allow us to do so, and for what its worth, Bush is trying to show the whole world we wont take any sh!t from anybody or any country. 911 was a wake up call, we either answer or put our heads back in the sand!!! and as for the 500 and counting that have gave it all, I feel for their Familys with the deepest regrets, but we lost 500 a week and maybe even some days in Nam, and for what???? The same crap as we are getting now from some......We need to stand behind the President and support him republican or Democrat until ALL, and I mean ALL our men are home and accounted for.
FREEBIRD
USMC 69-76
Forget...............NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!

SheWolf
02-18-04, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by namgrunt
You pegged it, Freebird.
You may have noticed the same thing happened back during the Vietnam war.
John Kerry used an interesting phrase during his anti-war days. He called Vietnam "Nixon's War." I guess it suited his purpose to ignore the fact that it was JFK (a personal acquaintance) who first sent advisers there, and LBJ who sent the first Marine battalions for combat purposes. Neither is Republican.
Richard M. Nixon is the one who ENDED the war, but that doesn't matter to left wingers. It became called his war by design. He wasn't a Democrat.

Semper Fi!

ummm,,, I thought it was Ike that sent the first advisors, then Kennedy that followed thru......:confused:

namgrunt
02-18-04, 07:25 PM
SheWolf
You may have a point. I recall now, that the first names on the Vietnam Wall in D.C., were from 1959, when Ike was still President. They were advisors. I stand corrected.
However, it was still LBJ which committed us to direct combat as battalions, regiments, and divisions. The first full infantry combat team to land, that I'm aware of, was 3rd Bn, 9th Marines, in 1965. The buildup escalated from there.

Regardless of who started it, it wasn't "Nixon's War", as stipulated by the anti-war demonstrators of the era. He ended it.

namgrunt

greensideout
02-18-04, 07:39 PM
Actually JFK was againest sending American troops to Nam, that's why he stayed with the "advisor" thing. I always figured that the machine wanted to get the war rolling and JFK was in the way.

You know the rest of the story.

namgrunt
02-18-04, 08:13 PM
Food for thought.

SheWolf
02-18-04, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by namgrunt
Food for thought.

um, no thanks, I'm full,,,,,



:banana:

LONEEAGLE
02-19-04, 10:52 AM
Anything Else? Freebird, go to Kerry's web site and copy, paste e-mail's to him, and ask the Sh!t head, "REMEMBER THESE" Dip stick? Good Stuff, glad to get the info. Just remember, "YOU CAIN'T FIX STUPID."

FREEBIRD
02-19-04, 08:38 PM
BigEagle6,
Yea, I have 1 more thing.... think about this one........

How many men do you know who went to Nam, stayed 4 months in combat on a swift boat, got 3 purple hearts, none from serious wounds, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star, then requested to go to Conus because of 3 purple hearts, then when back in states requested early out to get into politics???
story I got from a friend was when Kerry got one of his medals he was on the river when fired at by a VC, the rules of engagement teach you to back off when fired at by a RPG and spray the area with the dual 50 cals.........but this is what I heard happened, when the gook fired at the boat and missed, kerry turned the boat towards shore and ordered the gunner to fire and he hit the Vc which was trying to crawl off with an empty chamber, kerry jumped off the boat and shot the half dead ( maybe all the way dead ) Gook and received a medal, the other thing in rules of engagement is to never leave the boat, this puts all your men at risk cause you cant evade the area and you cant fire at the area, so really he should have had a good ass chewing at least instead of a medal???? WTF???
GoFigure!!!
FREEBIRD

usmc4669
02-20-04, 04:29 PM
What does this have to do with this thread? Just a little humor.

“For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost;

For the want of the shoe, the horse was lost;

For the want of a horse, the rider was lost;

For the want of the rider, the battle was lost;

For the want of the battle, the kingdom was lost;

And all for the want of a nail.”

Should have used staples. LOL

hobbit
02-21-04, 07:05 PM
All I can say is politicians have short memories and don't care who they have to sleep with to get where they want to be!!

ivalis
02-21-04, 09:12 PM
approximately a third of those killed in nam were under Nixon's watch. He may of ended the war. He ended it under near identical terms that we refused 3 yrs earlier. To that extent it was Nixon's war.

MillRatUSMC
02-21-04, 10:10 PM
http://www.1stmarinedivisionassociation.org/operation-battles-folder/man_holdingbuckets_mw.gif
A view known to many veterans of the Vietnam War.

The seeds of what later came to be known as the Vietnam War were planted after 1945.
Especially in Europe, where the communists were taking over much of the countries held by the Germans.
President Truman wanted NATO but to have that pass, he need help from the French government lead by Charles De gulle.

Here's a little from a page on the web;

At first, the United States attempted to stay clear of the Indochina war, even expressing some sympathy for the Viet Minh cause because their anticolonialist stance. Ho's 1945 declaration of independence had, in fact, closely followed the format of America's 1776 Declaration of Independence. However, following the Communist takeover of China in 1949, President Truman's attitude toward the Indochina war changed. On May 8, 1950, it was anounced that the USA would provide aid to the French forces fighting in Indochina.

We wanted a presence on mainland Asia close to China.
Especially after the take over by the communists in 1949.

This another reason, why we're seeking to "normalize" relations with Vietnam lately.

From 1950 on it was escalation of men and material till President Nixon bombed Hanio and Hia Phong.

A little from another page on the web;
The Nixon Administration announces a resumption of full-scale bombing and mining of the Hanoi and Hai Phong areas until there is an accord and Times.

So a Democrat laid the seeds and a Repubican put an end to what was planted way back then...

Semper Fidelis
Ricardo