I know that Christians will go to great lengths to try to explain this in some other way, so they themselves don't have to actually make themselves vulnerable. It's a scary thing to open yourself up like that without the option of striking back.
I've been told that the turn the other cheek phrase is about loaning money or getting a loan, and to get out of here with this pacifism stuff ya' damn hippie pinko.
well, if he didn't believe it, he certainly practiced it. "father forgive them for they know not what they do". not exactly the words you'd expect to hear a man say of his executioners are they?
or he said Luke 23:46 Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last.
I believe it's what he taught, because that's what the book says he taught. It's what the book says he did. The book also says he let them crucify him without fighting back even when he could have done so.
but it's not simply "let them". You don't bow to it either. You resist without striking back.
Nonsense.
I'll bet people thought that Jesus was a bit funny in the head too.
Jesus being the Son of God that died for the salvation of mankind is JUST A BIT different. Beside I thought you believed it was all a myth. Also, didn't you say that gays can't overcome their desire to be gay? I think it would be easier to overcome gayness as compared to overcoming self preservation.
part of me wonders what jethro would do if one of his kids one day told him that he/she was gay. part of me already believes that he would take said child in for an enormous amount of counseling.
part of me wonders what jethro would do if one of his kids one day told him that he/she was gay. I don't think that is going to happen.part of me already believes that he would take said child in for an enormous amount of counseling. most certainly.
I'm just musing a bit. A hard-sell playing on the guilt of a person confused enough agree to the counseling: the right "counselor" could get someone to believe the sun sets in the east.
interesting...AA says that if a person is an alcoholic, they will always be an alcoholic. Simply abstaining from alcohol doesn't change the fact that you are an alcoholic.
Are there ? Is that what the war is about ? If a butterfly flaps his wings in Brazil will it be windy in Duluth the next day ? Does a woodchuck actually chuck wood? If a fly had no wings would it be called a walk? I'm sure this is all somehow related.
Yea but how do you know they're on the pin ? Can't see em because they're invisible, unless you live in Bedford Falls and it's Christmas and you're drunk.
President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld were both asked to apologize recently for the illegal and amoral behavior of a few miscreant soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. They did so without qualifications, despite the fact the military had itself uncovered the transgressions and already prepared a blistering indictment of such reprehensible acts. Media scrutiny was intense; a general has already been removed from command; court trials are scheduled; and more resignations, demotions, and jail time loom.
But since we are in the season of apologies, we might as well continue it to the bitter end. Here I do not mean the buffoons like Michael Moore whose remorse would be as spurious as the original slander was lunatic, but rather serious commentators and statesmen who have crossed the line and need to step back. So here it goes.
Ted Kennedy is the senior U.S. senator from Massachusetts. He wields enormous influence and has appointed himself as surrogate spokesman for the Democratic opposition. Yet here is how he recently weighed in about Abu Ghraib: "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management — U.S. management."
This slander is both untrue and dangerous at a time when thousands of Americans are under fire in the field from commandos and criminals without uniforms who often pose as innocent civilians. The slur, pompously and publicly aired, is a morally reprehensible pronouncement in almost every way imaginable inasmuch as Saddam murdered tens of thousands with the full sanction of the Iraqi state apparatus. In contrast, a few rogue U.S. soldiers may have tortured and sexually humiliated some Iraqi prisoners — evoking audit and censure at the highest levels of "U.S. management" and inevitable court martial for those directly involved. There is no evidence that the "torture chambers" that disemboweled, shredded, and hung prisoners on meat hooks are now "reopened" for similar procedures on orders of the American government.
Mr. Kennedy should apologize. His reckless and feeble attempts at moral equivalence are wrong in matters of magnitude, government responsibility, and public disclosure, remorse, and accountability. Worse still, his silly comments — printed around the Arab world — suggest to the those on the battlefield that a high-ranking official of their own American government believes that his own soldiers are fighting for a cause no different from that which murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Thomas L. Friedman is the chief New York Times columnist now writing about foreign affairs. Millions at home and abroad read what he writes, and trust him to be both sober and judicious in his criticism. We have all read him with profit at times. But in a particularly angry opinion editorial on May 13 he leveled the following baffling charge: "I know this is hard to believe, but the Pentagon crew hated Colin Powell, and wanted to see him humiliated 10 times more than Saddam."
That charge is simply untrue, and is nearly as reckless as Mr. Kennedy's remarks. Mr. Rumsfeld and his aides do not "hate" Mr. Powell. No one has expressed such venom. But what is truly reprehensible is to imply that officials of the United States government wished far worse for their own decorated Secretary of State than they did for a mass murderer with whom they were then currently at war. Once more such a malicious remark will do untold damage abroad. If Mr. Friedman cannot produce a reputable source or direct quotation for such an unfortunate attribution that borders on character assassination, he should apologize for being both wrong and incendiary.
So far we know as much about the Oil-for-Food mess as we do the Abu Ghraib prisoner scandal. Other than the sensational pictorial evidence from the prisons, the only difference in the respective ongoing audits is that the U.S. military is fully investigating its own while the U.N. is stonewalling. But if dozens of Iraqis may have been humiliated and perhaps even tortured by renegade American soldiers, tens of thousands of women and children faced starvation while corrupt U.N. officials at the highest levels knew about billions of needed dollars in illegal kickbacks skimmed off hand-in-glove with a mass murderer.
So far Kofi Annan — whose own son, Kojo, was at one time associated with the Swiss Cotecna consortium involved in the shameful profiteering — has not apologized to the Iraqi people. He should. Again, his agency's wrongdoing did not result in humiliation for some, but probably cost the lives of thousands while under his watch.
What is going on? The months of April and May have been surreal — scandals at Abu Ghraib, decapitations and desecrations of those killed from Gaza to Iraq, and insurrections in Fallujah and Najaf. The shock of the unexpected has led to hysteria and cheap TV moralizing by critics of the war, fueled by election-year politics at home, apparent embarrassment for some erstwhile supporters of the intervention who are angry that democracy in Iraq has not appeared fully-formed out of the head of Zeus, and a certain amnesia about the recent dark history of the United Nations.
Yet there are historical forces still in play that bode well for Iraq — aid pouring in, oil revenues increasing, Iraqi autonomy nearing, and radical terrorists failing to win public support — all of which we are ignoring amid the successive 24-hour media barrages. The combat deaths of 700 soldiers are tragic. We in our postwar confusion have also made a number of mistakes: not storming into the Sunni Triangle at war's end, not shooting the first 500 looters that started the mass rampage of theft, not keeping some of the Iraqi army units intact, not bulldozing down Saddam Hussein's notorious prisons, not immediately putting at war's end Iraqi officials into the public arena, not storming Fallujah, and not destroying al Sadr and his militias last spring.
Still, in just a year the worst mass murderer in recent history is gone and a consensual government is scheduled to assume power in his place in just a few weeks. Postwar Iraq is not a cratered Dresden or the rubble of Stalingrad — it is seeing power, water, and fuel production at or above prewar levels. For all the recent mishaps, two truths still remain about Iraq — each time the American military forcibly takes on the insurrectionists, it wins; and each time local elections are held, moderate Iraqis, not Islamic radicals, have won.
So let us calm down and let events play out. If it were not an election year, Mr. Kennedy would dare not say such reprehensible things. In two or three months when there is a legitimate Iraqi government in power, Mr. Friedman may not wish to level such absurd charges. And when the truth comes out about the U.N.'s past role in Iraq, both Iraqis and Americans may not be so ready to entrust the new democracy's future to an agency that has not only done little to save Bosnians or Rwandans, but over the past decade may well have done much to harm Iraqis.
But in the meantime, let these who have transgressed all join the president and the secretary of defense and say they are sorry for what they have recklessly said and the untold harm that they have done.
WMDs can be Atomic, Biological, Chemical, or Verbal!
\09
\09
\09
\09
Years before George W. Bush became our president, most prominent Democrats wanted Saddam Husseins head on a platter.
Now those same Democrats say that George W. lied to us and Hussein never had any WMDs, and the only reason president Bush went into Iraq was for the oil.
The next time one of these Demon-crats, masquerading as a politician, start spewing their Verbal Weapons of Mass Destruction ; send them a copy of this web page.
\09
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. Â Â 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 Iraqs weapons of mass destruction program. Â Â 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. Â Â Madeline Albright, 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 Iraqs refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. Â Â 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. Â Â Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
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. Â Â Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) 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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them. Â Â Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Â Â Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
Iraqs 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. Â Â Al Gore, Sept. 23, 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... Â Â 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 b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. Â Â 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. Â Â 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 weap ons 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. Â Â 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. Â Â
"[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 is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Â Â Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
If you find any errors in the facts or logic of this web page, or simply differ in philosophy, I am interested in your feedback. Please no unintelligible rants or raves. Sophomoric or un-referenced responses will be directed to the bit-bucket. J.R. Whipple
Many of the above citations are from national news services. Many news services delete, or move, their old stories over time. If the link seems broken, contact the root web page and/or email the editor for verification, please save your bandwidth, and don't bother to tell me.
It seems, during this election year, a few of the news services are removing some of the above articles in a fruitless attempt to spare "their guys" further embarrassment.
If you find alternative sources for any of the above missing links, please send them to me.
"Words Start Wars - Guns End Them!"
-J.R. Whipple
 (Who has more guns than words;-)
\09
\09Feel free to pass this web page on to any who might benifit.
nope.
I know that Christians will go to great lengths to try to explain this in some other way, so they themselves don't have to actually make themselves vulnerable. It's a scary thing to open yourself up like that without the option of striking back.
you got a source for that?
I've been told that the turn the other cheek phrase is about loaning money or getting a loan, and to get out of here with this pacifism stuff ya' damn hippie pinko.
he taught that you should love your enemy.
even if they kill you.
You don't beleive that, do you?
well, if he didn't believe it, he certainly practiced it. "father forgive them for they know not what they do". not exactly the words you'd expect to hear a man say of his executioners are they?
or he said Luke 23:46 Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last.
or maybe it was this way: John 19:
[26] When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"
[27] Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
[28] After this Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfil the scripture), "I thirst."
[29] A bowl full of vinegar stood there; so they put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth.
[30] When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished"; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
I believe it's what he taught, because that's what the book says he taught. It's what the book says he did. The book also says he let them crucify him without fighting back even when he could have done so.
I also happen to agree with it.
The book also says he let them crucify him without fighting back even when he could have done so.
I suppose you can do that if you are the Son of God. But you don't believe that.
34 - Forgive them If they had understood and continued in sin, they could not have received the forgivness offered.
http://www.bibleexplained.com/Gospels/Luke/Lu23.htm
guess what, you can do that even if you aren't the son of God.
It's not easy, but it can be done by mortal men.
sorry, I don't believe mortal man can do it unless he is menatally ill. If someone were going to kill you would you just let them?
rather than take a human life...yes.
but it's not simply "let them". You don't bow to it either. You resist without striking back.
I'll bet people thought that Jesus was a bit funny in the head too.
rather than take a human life...yes.
I don't believe you.
but it's not simply "let them". You don't bow to it either. You resist without striking back.
Nonsense.
I'll bet people thought that Jesus was a bit funny in the head too.
Jesus being the Son of God that died for the salvation of mankind is JUST A BIT different. Beside I thought you believed it was all a myth. Also, didn't you say that gays can't overcome their desire to be gay? I think it would be easier to overcome gayness as compared to overcoming self preservation.
well, that settles that I guess.
you aren't a follower of Jesus Christ?
believed what was a myth?
no, it's not a question of desire....it's a question of what you are.
to not take a human life IS a form of self-preservation
well, that settles that I guess. It should. Keep living the lie, crabs.
Jesus being the Son of God that died for the salvation of mankind is JUST A BIT different.
you aren't a follower of Jesus Christ?
I don't understand your question.
Beside I thought you believed it was all a myth.
believed what was a myth?
Jesus.
Also, didn't you say that gays can't overcome their desire to be gay?
no, it's not a question of desire....it's a question of what you are.
Who you are is a living human being, albeit it a warped one.
I think it would be easier to overcome gayness as compared to overcoming self preservation.
to not take a human life IS a form of self-preservation
Letting someone kill you is NOT self preservation. Like I said warped.
it's not a lie, bodine.
you don't seem to be able to understand much of anything
I believe there was someone named Jesus and that he taught some things, many of which I agree with.
One of the things I am is a hetrosexual human being. It's not something I can change by simple desire.
who said I am letting anyone kill me. If they need my permission, I won't give it.
letting them know that I won't kill them increases my chances that they won't try to kill me.
One of the things I am is a hetrosexual human being. It's not something I can change by simple desire.
Yes you can. If you can let people kill you, which is of course is a lie, then you can overcome your heterosexuality.
part of me wonders what jethro would do if one of his kids one day told him that he/she was gay. part of me already believes that he would take said child in for an enormous amount of counseling.
part of me wonders what jethro would do if one of his kids one day told him that he/she was gay. I don't think that is going to happen.part of me already believes that he would take said child in for an enormous amount of counseling. most certainly.
not me, I was born that way.
I don't doubt that you can overcome it if that's not really what you are though.
why don't you think that could happen?
how do you know it isn't already the case.
you think if your kid was gay, they would tell you?
I've heard about those deprogramming sessions. Pile on a shitload of guilt and they can bust homosexual tendancies.
Not sure of the person who comes out the other end of one. But I bet it works good.
It doesn't
remember those two "reformed" gays who ran a program to "save" people from it?
they fell in love and had to disband the program.
I'm just musing a bit. A hard-sell playing on the guilt of a person confused enough agree to the counseling: the right "counselor" could get someone to believe the sun sets in the east.
how do you know it isn't already the case.
I am fairly certain.
But I bet it works good.
It doesn't
It works about as well as Alcoholics Anonymous.
I wonder what any of this has to do with the war in Iraq ?
A properly deprogrammed gay might come out thinking he'd spent the week at the spa at Abu Grahaib.
interesting...AA says that if a person is an alcoholic, they will always be an alcoholic. Simply abstaining from alcohol doesn't change the fact that you are an alcoholic.
there are no homosexuals in Iraq?
crabgrass 5/21/04 8:51am
Are there ? Is that what the war is about ? If a butterfly flaps his wings in Brazil will it be windy in Duluth the next day ? Does a woodchuck actually chuck wood? If a fly had no wings would it be called a walk? I'm sure this is all somehow related.
It's Friday, Rob. Give us a break.
there are as many reason that the war is about as there are angels dancing on the head of a pin.
How many angels can fit on the head of a pin ?
at least as many as reasons given for the war on Iraq
Yea but how do you know they're on the pin ? Can't see em because they're invisible, unless you live in Bedford Falls and it's Christmas and you're drunk.
President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld were both asked to apologize recently for the illegal and amoral behavior of a few miscreant soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. They did so without qualifications, despite the fact the military had itself uncovered the transgressions and already prepared a blistering indictment of such reprehensible acts. Media scrutiny was intense; a general has already been removed from command; court trials are scheduled; and more resignations, demotions, and jail time loom.
But since we are in the season of apologies, we might as well continue it to the bitter end. Here I do not mean the buffoons like Michael Moore whose remorse would be as spurious as the original slander was lunatic, but rather serious commentators and statesmen who have crossed the line and need to step back. So here it goes.
Ted Kennedy is the senior U.S. senator from Massachusetts. He wields enormous influence and has appointed himself as surrogate spokesman for the Democratic opposition. Yet here is how he recently weighed in about Abu Ghraib: "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management — U.S. management."
This slander is both untrue and dangerous at a time when thousands of Americans are under fire in the field from commandos and criminals without uniforms who often pose as innocent civilians. The slur, pompously and publicly aired, is a morally reprehensible pronouncement in almost every way imaginable inasmuch as Saddam murdered tens of thousands with the full sanction of the Iraqi state apparatus. In contrast, a few rogue U.S. soldiers may have tortured and sexually humiliated some Iraqi prisoners — evoking audit and censure at the highest levels of "U.S. management" and inevitable court martial for those directly involved. There is no evidence that the "torture chambers" that disemboweled, shredded, and hung prisoners on meat hooks are now "reopened" for similar procedures on orders of the American government.
Mr. Kennedy should apologize. His reckless and feeble attempts at moral equivalence are wrong in matters of magnitude, government responsibility, and public disclosure, remorse, and accountability. Worse still, his silly comments — printed around the Arab world — suggest to the those on the battlefield that a high-ranking official of their own American government believes that his own soldiers are fighting for a cause no different from that which murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Thomas L. Friedman is the chief New York Times columnist now writing about foreign affairs. Millions at home and abroad read what he writes, and trust him to be both sober and judicious in his criticism. We have all read him with profit at times. But in a particularly angry opinion editorial on May 13 he leveled the following baffling charge: "I know this is hard to believe, but the Pentagon crew hated Colin Powell, and wanted to see him humiliated 10 times more than Saddam."
That charge is simply untrue, and is nearly as reckless as Mr. Kennedy's remarks. Mr. Rumsfeld and his aides do not "hate" Mr. Powell. No one has expressed such venom. But what is truly reprehensible is to imply that officials of the United States government wished far worse for their own decorated Secretary of State than they did for a mass murderer with whom they were then currently at war. Once more such a malicious remark will do untold damage abroad. If Mr. Friedman cannot produce a reputable source or direct quotation for such an unfortunate attribution that borders on character assassination, he should apologize for being both wrong and incendiary.
So far we know as much about the Oil-for-Food mess as we do the Abu Ghraib prisoner scandal. Other than the sensational pictorial evidence from the prisons, the only difference in the respective ongoing audits is that the U.S. military is fully investigating its own while the U.N. is stonewalling. But if dozens of Iraqis may have been humiliated and perhaps even tortured by renegade American soldiers, tens of thousands of women and children faced starvation while corrupt U.N. officials at the highest levels knew about billions of needed dollars in illegal kickbacks skimmed off hand-in-glove with a mass murderer.
So far Kofi Annan — whose own son, Kojo, was at one time associated with the Swiss Cotecna consortium involved in the shameful profiteering — has not apologized to the Iraqi people. He should. Again, his agency's wrongdoing did not result in humiliation for some, but probably cost the lives of thousands while under his watch.
What is going on? The months of April and May have been surreal — scandals at Abu Ghraib, decapitations and desecrations of those killed from Gaza to Iraq, and insurrections in Fallujah and Najaf. The shock of the unexpected has led to hysteria and cheap TV moralizing by critics of the war, fueled by election-year politics at home, apparent embarrassment for some erstwhile supporters of the intervention who are angry that democracy in Iraq has not appeared fully-formed out of the head of Zeus, and a certain amnesia about the recent dark history of the United Nations.
Yet there are historical forces still in play that bode well for Iraq — aid pouring in, oil revenues increasing, Iraqi autonomy nearing, and radical terrorists failing to win public support — all of which we are ignoring amid the successive 24-hour media barrages. The combat deaths of 700 soldiers are tragic. We in our postwar confusion have also made a number of mistakes: not storming into the Sunni Triangle at war's end, not shooting the first 500 looters that started the mass rampage of theft, not keeping some of the Iraqi army units intact, not bulldozing down Saddam Hussein's notorious prisons, not immediately putting at war's end Iraqi officials into the public arena, not storming Fallujah, and not destroying al Sadr and his militias last spring.
Still, in just a year the worst mass murderer in recent history is gone and a consensual government is scheduled to assume power in his place in just a few weeks. Postwar Iraq is not a cratered Dresden or the rubble of Stalingrad — it is seeing power, water, and fuel production at or above prewar levels. For all the recent mishaps, two truths still remain about Iraq — each time the American military forcibly takes on the insurrectionists, it wins; and each time local elections are held, moderate Iraqis, not Islamic radicals, have won.
So let us calm down and let events play out. If it were not an election year, Mr. Kennedy would dare not say such reprehensible things. In two or three months when there is a legitimate Iraqi government in power, Mr. Friedman may not wish to level such absurd charges. And when the truth comes out about the U.N.'s past role in Iraq, both Iraqis and Americans may not be so ready to entrust the new democracy's future to an agency that has not only done little to save Bosnians or Rwandans, but over the past decade may well have done much to harm Iraqis.
But in the meantime, let these who have transgressed all join the president and the secretary of defense and say they are sorry for what they have recklessly said and the untold harm that they have done.
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200405210830.asp
JT, maybe you or Jethro could actually DEFINE what a Pacifist IS, instead of just denying that He Wasn't one?
Pacifist: 1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of pacifism or pacifists
Pacifism: 1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
I definately want to know why you would say, or believe such a thing...?
I've already gone over it with you.
if that's the case bodine, then an act of homosexuality does not make one a homosexual.
You're a coward crabs. Admit it.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
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.
 Â
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 Iraqs weapons of mass
destruction program.
 Â
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.
 Â
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983.
 Â
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 Iraqs refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs.
 Â
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.
 Â
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.
 Â
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.
 Â
Letter
to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) 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
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them.
 Â
Sen. Carl Levin (D,
MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country.
 Â
Al
Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
Iraqs 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.
 Â
Al
Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction.
 Â
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...
 Â
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 b elieve
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security.
 Â
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.
 Â
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
 Â
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 weap ons
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.
 Â
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.
 Â
printable532270.shtml">Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
"[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 is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
 Â
Sen.
John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
If you find any errors in the facts or logic of this web page, or simply differ in philosophy, I am interested in your feedback. Please no unintelligible rants or raves. Sophomoric or un-referenced responses will be directed to the bit-bucket.
J.R. Whipple
Many of the above citations are from national news services. Many news services delete, or move, their old stories over time. If the link seems broken, contact the root web page and/or email the editor for verification, please save your bandwidth, and don't bother to tell me.
It seems, during this election year, a few of the news services are removing some of the above articles in a fruitless attempt to spare "their guys" further embarrassment.
If you find alternative sources for any of the above missing links, please send them to me.
where is Von to complain about the spamming?
crabgrass 5/22/04 6:50pm
Care to comment on the content? Or are you just going to sit back and whine about the fact that my post has been posted elsewhere?
Grow up sonny.
I love it! Spamming is quoting libs!!! Get lost, crabs.
Torpedo-8 5/22/04 7:32pm
Crabs is whining because I posted that in more than one place.
I notice he opted out of commenting on the content.
Because he can't refute it.
Torpedo-8 5/22/04 7:41pm
Bingo
http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/
LOL