Kerry Purple Heart Doc Speaks Out

[sqwkvfr]

I support our troops but I think the Bush administration duped them into risking their lives over BS reasons.

Do you care to explain how this demoralizing, condescending statement can be characterized as "support?"

You see, there's a time and place for everything....and this just isn't the time. Democrats know this, but they can't afford to wait....forget about how bad it is for the war effort and all countries involved.

A reminder:

"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 St ate, 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 a threat to the peace and stability of
the region. He has ignored the mandated 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



Now, do you think that all of these folks were "duped" as well? Or do you think that these statements were, and still are, the truth, but that the "win-at-all-costs, scorched earth" campaign coming from the Democrats this political season has turned the truth into a lie?

 

[flint4xx]

VFR, I like the way you work...

 

[Snoopy58]

MW,

whatever propaganda site gave you

"iminent threat to the Us." Surprise that was all a bunch of BS and the president knew it was BS when he used it in his State of the Union.

was lying. The President said specifically in the State of the Union that while the threat is real and serious, it is not yet imminent, but we can not afford to wait until it is, because by the time we have proof of an imminent threat, it is likely too late. Months later, the NYT & others used essentially the same facts (a serious but not at the time imminent threat) & trumpeted it as if it showed that Bush was wrong, which of course it didn't.

They should have known better, as should you. Iraq was a very grave threat to the U.S., no less so for not being a threat within the coming week or month.

But you will persist in spouting the lie that President Bush "lied" about the imminence of the threat in the State of the Union. He did no such thing, but the lie serves your purpose, so you repeat it. Typical of the Democrats of late, sadly.

 

[MW44]

How was the threaet "real and serious in Iraq" and if it was why haven't we invaded N Korea (actually has a nuclear program), syria, Iran, etc. etc? If any country is a "grave threat" I would argue it would be N Korea. What is Sadaam going to do with some mustard gas half-way around the world? Obviously there was more reason to go in than his WMD program. Now even the administration has backed away from the WMD argument and say the real reason was to remove a brutal dictator. Is it worth losing a thousand or more American citizens, Tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens, and spending over 100 Billion dollars to keep Sadamm from terrorizing his people? I dont know...

 

[Herman Bloom]

I think the spoiled rich kids should go kill each other instead of recruiting brain dead disciples to die for their causes.

Class warriors are weaklings. Sack up.

and for all you liberal wackos.

Dubya, I don't think you are very smart. You are the worst kind of dogmatic partisan, and you have nothing that this country needs.

 

[Dubya]

Yeah....W = Whatever

You must be one of those liberal wackos.....and the country needs many more of you.
Class warfare is liberal born and bred. Dork.


W

 

[sqwkvfr]

You are the worst kind of dogmatic partisan....

You know, Herman, I went through the history of your posts on this board, and I've noticed that you have a real problem with only conservative partisans. Is it possible that you're a little one-sided yourself and just unwilling to admit it? Or are you trying to disguise a left-leaning agenda with a mask that pretends to be fair and balanced?

I'd also like to point out another reality. We live in a representative democracy. The majority expresses their views by electing a person from one of, almost exclusively, two parties.

Single-issue candidates are rarely elected and quite frankly, don't have a place in the current system of politics. Regardless, you're not gonna find a politican (unless you run yourself) who shares the exact same views as you on every issue, and you're certainly not gonna find a party that agrees with you on every single issue. If this were the case, there'd be almost 300 million poilitical parties in this country. So, you have to choose....Republican or Democrat.

Most people in this country have chosen one or the other. They demonstrate unity by defending their side's views and supporting their candidates. They by no means agree with every position of every candidate that their party puts forward, but the majority of that party elect the candidate that best fits their philosophy during that particular election cycle.

So most people in this country are partisan....one way or another. That doesn't mean that they're mindless robots (as the condescending tone of your posts suggests) and it doesn't mean that they can't think for themselves.

It simply means that they understand that in this country, majority still rules (and you "selected president" folks can save it, if you wanna bring it up, I'll cream you). Ya gotta pick a side, or you'll just end up standing in the middle looking around.

In a world where too many people think that signing a petition, wearing a ribbon, or walking 2 miles along a baracaded parade route is enough, I use every opportunity that I get to talk about the conservative philosophy of government....because I know that it's right. (it also breaks up the monotony of the "man did you see the rack on that chick?" conversations that seem to be so prevalent among my age group and gender, but that's another post)

Folks around me know my beliefs...even if a person disagrees with me, we exchange good-natured barbs and part friends. I'm proud of my conservative nature...and I don't have to misrepresent my positions, or hide my agenga behind so-called "compassion" or "tollerance."

If the above makes me partisan....call me partisan.

One last thing....if you can't see fit to be more polite, perhaps you should consider excusing yourself from this board. Partisanship may be bad to some people, but I think that far more people consider rude, insulting, condescending, and just plain juvenile behavior far worse.

 

[Snoopy58]

How was the threaet "real and serious in Iraq"

You really aren't paying attention, are you? Invaded neighbors twice without provocation, history of producing & using chemical weapons, shot scuds at Israel, megalomaniacal designs on controlling all Mid East oil, abounding connections to terrorists (not the 19 of 9/11, as far as we presently know, but plenty of terror training camps & funding to various groups), paying off families of suicide bombers, attempted assassination of a former US president, and you don't think Iraq was a serious threat to Middle East stability & thus US national interests? Clearly NOT paying attention there, MW.

and if it was why haven't we invaded N Korea (actually has a nuclear program), syria, Iran, etc. etc? If any country is a "grave threat" I would argue it would be N Korea.

You might, in your grand expertise in foreign policy, argue that, but those who could best examine the data found otherwise. Perhaps the fact that North Korea hasn't invaded anyone in decades, isn't close to oil fields, has China restraining them, lacks any great natural resources to have much wealth, and hasn't actually USED any WMD made them less of a threat in policymakers' estimation. Perhaps there were better avenues to deal with them. Perhaps their turn is coming. Ditto Syria, Iran, etc.

But it's really a pretty silly argument to say "If Iraq is #1 threat, why didn't we also invade #2 and #3 and #4 all as well at the same time?" You deal with the one you evaluate as the greatest threat first, then with the next, etc. You claim to differ on which country would be #1 (although your tune might change if we were at war with North Korea right now), but disagreeing on ranking #1 vs #2 doesn't really deny the necessity of acting, which is your real point.

What is Sadaam going to do with some mustard gas half-way around the world?

Murder thousands of people inside his own country (again) or attempt to destabilize the Middle East (again).

Obviously there was more reason to go in than his WMD program.

Exactly, as was articulated by Administration officials repeatedly before the war. It was NEVER "all about WMD only," until the press found something there they could go after, and then all other reasons to go after Iraq were conveniently forgotten.

Is it worth losing a thousand or more American citizens, Tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens, and spending over 100 Billion dollars to keep Sadamm from terrorizing his people? I dont know...

Check your numbers, I don't think any of them match what this war has cost in combatant deaths of Americans or civillian deaths of Iraqis, nor total cost. However, consider this: what would it have been worth in, say, 1938, to stop Hitler? At that point he showed propensity to invade neighbors & murder Jews, but the actual numbers weren't all that great. "Was it really worth X and Y and Z to depose Herr Hitler, whose 'invasions' were really minor boarde disputes, and whose 'atrocities' were actually but a few hundred gypsies, Jews, gays, and mentally retarded?"

Of course it would have been worth a great price to eliminate Hitler as a threat in 1938 (and I don't mean to trivialize his atrocities to that point, only to suggest that what I wrote there is exactly how it would have been characterized), but at the time there wouldn't be proof of the horror that eliminating him would have avoided. Only of the concrete costs involved.

You can never know for certain how great a calamity a preemptive strike avoids.

Funny how the Dems were so furious that Bush didn't strike preemptively against Al Qaeda, i.e. Afghanistan, to prevent 9/11 (a catastrophe no one envisioned beforehand), but can't tolorate a preemptive war elsewhere, attempting to avert instability, murders, and wars that we can clearly envision, judging from recent history.

Pure hypocrisy.

 

[Herman Bloom]

I went through the history of your posts on this board, and I've noticed that you have a real problem with only conservative partisans.

That's becuase the conservatives on this board tend to be dogmatic, and fundamentalists scare me (more so than dubya's so-called "liberal wackos"). Do I lean towards the left side of most issues? Probably. Should I appologize?

You must be one of those liberal wackos.....and the country needs many more of you.

Class warfare is liberal born and bred. Dork.

I can tell you that I'm not a class warrior. And not a dork. You seem really smart.

 

[Dubya]

Thanks

In fact...I am.

W