"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 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.
2007-01-15 08:49:04 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's the biggest problem Democrats have. It's why their "Bush lied" doesn't work.
Okay, and so if I disagreed with ALL of them, but now support the war, why can't they?
2007-01-15 09:00:06 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They are saying that according to intelligence reports at the time, that saddam was in pursuit or possession of weapons of mass destruction. even though the intelligence reports turned out to be false, there was no lying involved in the reasons for going to war. And of all the intelligence in the world, which country are you gonna believe? USA. Who knows, Saddam could have had the stuff destroyed before we invaded, or he could have had it shipped out of the country before we invaded. Unfortunately, the only people that know the truth have been executed for genocide.
2007-01-15 09:02:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Democrats supported Bush and Iraq because everyone knew it was what had to be done. But then they discovered their best political manuever would be to attack Bush to get into office, so they turned on him like animals, bashed him all the way up to the 2006 election (without offering any sort of plans of their own) and became elected. Remember, to a Democrat, its not about the good of the country, its about getting into power.
2007-01-15 08:54:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
I think they are all saying they are against the war in Iraq. Right?
If you notice, they are all using double positives: using and developing, biological and chemical, real and grave.
In political speak, a double positive is a negative. Two positives reasons to go to war means they are against war.
2007-01-15 08:54:21 · answer #4 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
If I could come up with a drug formula for combatting selective amnesia, I'd be richer than Bill Gates.
2007-01-15 08:53:31 · answer #5 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Further proof of the "two faced" nature of the liberal democrat.
Why can't they make a decision and stay with it?
2007-01-15 08:57:22 · answer #6 · answered by infobrokernate 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They are saying for a short time they believed the President.
2007-01-15 08:54:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
I think they are saying we don't have the balls to stand up to the republicans.
2007-01-15 09:00:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
mouthpieces spouting poor intell
2007-01-15 08:53:45 · answer #9 · answered by Paul I 4 · 0⤊ 7⤋