Democrats. Can you acknowledge the following, or are you not allowed to because you are a democrat?

Question

Can you acknowledge that Nancy Pelosi BEFORE Bush was in office?

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

It would almost be comical, if it wern't so sad. Look at the libs STILL say, "bush lied",, completely ignoring what I have shown them!

Why can't they acknowledge a documented fact?

Answer 1

Yes, she said that.
So?

Saddam *was* engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction -- mostly BEFORE the first gulf war. AFTER the first gulf war, Iraq was economically devastated and internationally crippled. It was suspected that Iraq was still working on WMDs, but there was no real proof. In 2000, when weapons inspectors were able to do *some* work, they found no evidence of active work on or operational WMDs.

Despite those FACTS, Bush presented falsified evidence to the American people and to congress saying that Saddam *was* still working on WMDs, and that he had working WMDs, and that they were an imminent threat. All of which were outright lies. And he knew it.

You'll notice also that Ms. Pelosi doesn't advocate invading Iraq in her statement...

Answer 2

Yeah. She was wrong. So was Bush. Lets try to find a solution, idiot. You're clearly not doing anything, why not campaign to pull out of Iraq. You have admitted it was a mistake. So LETS GET OUT OF THERE! Or not... if you don't want to... but honestly, this doesnt really matter.

"t would almost be comical, if it wern't so sad. Look at the libs STILL say, "bush lied",, completely ignoring what I have shown them!

Why can't they acknowledge a documented fact?"

OK, Bush Lied. And because he said the same thing as Nancy here, she apparently lied too. Its not hard logic. The fact remains, Nancy Pelosi didn't invade Iraq riding on the waves of Americans emotions following 9/11.

Answer 3

I knew that she had stated these things just as many other democrats had, I have a long list of statements from everyone from John Kerry to Nancy Pelosi that made such statements. Geekboy, I notice that you and a few others still blame these statements on the Bush administration and false intelligence, even after given the information that these statements were made while clinton was in office, wow! This is not an example of taking statements out of context and using them to support a specific stance, these statements are uncut content right from the congressional record and interview of the people making the statements. They made these statements before Bush was president and if they were misinformed deliberately or otherwise then, what makes you think they are any better informed now? What makes you think they are smarter now and that they could now tell the difference between good and bad information now when they could not then?

Answer 4

I'm a Democrat, and I acknowledge the statement and the date it was made. Do you see anything significant about the date? It coincides with Operation Desert Fox.

You're probably putting forward this quote out of context like this to make it seem like Pelosi was in favor of invading Iraq in 1998.

The statement was made, not to encourage some idiotic full-scale invasion and occupation of Iraq, but in support of 1998's Operation Desert Fox, which was a bombing campaign intended to further degrade Iraq's ability to produce WMD and to punish Iraq for obstructing inspections. The Iraqi government was corrupt, petulant, and incompetent, and did not cooperate with weapons inspectors. Even though Iraq hadn't produced any WMD since 1991 at the latest, Saddam did continue to cling to the illusion of WMD to make himself seem dangerous and powerful. And he resented the inspectors in Iraq. Thus the Iraqi obstruction. And thus 1998's punishing air strikes, which Nancy Pelosi spoke in favor of. The campaign was recognized at the time to have been successful in further degrading Iraq's WMD capability. Today, it's recognized that Iraq's WMD capability was already next to nothing, that after the campaign it was pathetic, and that since 1991 Iraq's actual possession of WMD was nonexistent.

What point were you trying to make with this quote, again? Did you have one?

Answer 5

They just cannot get it through their heads that there was sufficient suspicion with Saddam's WoMD threat....

We do know that some things have actually been found... unfortunately we will never know exactly how much was smuggled into places like Iran and Syria...

But the fact is that with the information we had (and no libtards, it is/was not some great conspiracy by Bush and his administration to falsify intel), and with the change in the world and our national security after 9/11, it was a better move to take out Saddam then it was to leave him in charge there. He should have been removed long ago, but Clinton nor George HW Bush had the fortitude to actually finish the job.

Answer 6

No the dems will never acknowledge. And, to show you the IQ of a Lib, all you have to do is read the answer by FascFiter. This dudette, don't even know who was president in December of 1998. A typle bash Bushette. To damned stupid to even know who was president 9 years ago. Talk about living under a rock.

Answer 7

You can find a LOT more flip-floppers than Nancy Pelosi who supported the invasion of Iraq and / or said that Saddam Hussein had WMD's.

You'll even find folks here on YA who will blame Nancy's 1998 statement on GWB's "bad intelligence". (Fascfiter and Geekbo)

Hey guys...Bill Clinton was president in 1998...hilarious!!!

It doesn't matter. All that matters to GWB-haters is that whatever ANYONE has done or said, even if it appears to vindicate GWB's position today, it was all because GWB lied and was incompetent...even BEFORE he took office!

Best laugh I've had in a long time!

Answer 8

no problem, i can acknowledge your arcane and dated fact. unfortunately, bush has been caught in bald-faced lies (google; nigeria, uranium, italy, kidnapping or america,wiretaps). in addition he is privy to a much more accurate intelligent overview than any member of congress. as a former sergeant of marines, i took an oath, as did all veterans and active duty service members to protect and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. it is a serious oath that i take seriously. the problem i have with bush, whom i voted for twice, is that i believe what he has done at home and abroad is a threat to the constitution and is impeachable. sorry, it's sad but true. btw, i'm still a republican and believe good changes can still come of this debacle.

Answer 9

I saw the first two answers. Out of context?! What could be more in context? She's justifying an armed response to Iraq based on WMD intel!!!

Granted, she's not authorizing all-out war, but she supports aggression based on Saddam's action. Wake up, Dems.

Answer 10

i'd like to add this from President Clinton: dec. 16, 1998

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
(snip)
Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
(snip)
If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.