Why are the Democrats now saying we should have went to war sooner?

Question

Some are even saying we should have sent more troops and we should defund them, can our military continue to fight with out food and Ammo, will they have to steal fuel for their vehicles, can the Fish Lady pull it off?

Answer 1

"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 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."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) 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 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 using and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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 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 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. "[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 has 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.

Answer 2

That is a totally false statement. If the Republican's case is so strong, why all the lies and distortions about what the Democrats are saying? I think it is basically "the best defense is a strong offense." If you say enough lies, it will keep them busy defending themselves so no will listen to what is really being said.

No person in their right mind would "defund" the troops. The liberals do not want to see soldiers killed needlessly. They do want a war done properly, if it is to be done at all. It is the Bush administration, conservative Republicans, who initially put the troops there with inadequate armor and other tools of the trade.

I have visited meetings where this has been discussed in detail. The Democrates DO want the troops safe. Many of them do not believe in this war, but I have never EVER heard even one say anything negative about the troops. Some want the troops out right now, but they want them adequately supplied while they are there.

The Democrates appreciate what the troops are doing, even though some believe the overall goal and methods are faulty. You have to separate the person from the idology to understand. You also have to listen to what is really being said, not what the "other side" says is being said.

Too many lies.

P.S. Thank you, 9876578. You have given a very thoughtful and intellegent answer....NOT!

Answer 3

Perhaps, George H.W. Bush should have completed the task of removing Saddam during the first Gulf War. In that instance, the world was behind our efforts completely. The mandate that liberated Kuwait could have been extended to liberate Iraq as well. But my belief is Saddam should have been left contained inside of Iraq.

Answer 4

Your question makes no sense, just like that Senator ex-POW who would be king and should know he makes no sense! Neither has your president from before the invasion to now!

Your question makes no sense either like the rest of your ilk! You are the ones who mismanaged the war, you are the ones that failed to quell the insurgency years ago but did not, you were the ones who were sending troops to Iraq with no body armor and unarmored Hummer's!

I don't think Democrats are saying we should have gone to war sooner, in fact, most would not even have voted for it if they were given information that Bush already knew were lies! President Ford would not have Gone!

No Democrat will not give our troops what they need, however, they do have a big disagreement with a war that should have never been started and has lasted longer that WW II and it is GETTING WORSE! Don't you think 4 years later, and after losing all the men and money, our troops do not belong involved in a civil war where there are no terrorist, just religious warring factions over government control!

Bush's rhetoric of "Stay the course" are 3 dead words, and may they rest in peace!

As a matter of fact it was the Democrats that got the troops the equipment they needed and it was Hillary Clinton in particular, that went after the government and Bush for charging the wounded for meals when they were discharged from Walter Reed! I didn't see any Republicans do squat except cut 100 BILLION from the Veterans Hospitals beginning in 2006 when we have had over 23,000 wounded in Iraq who are going to need them as their arms and legs missing from IED's!

And Godzilla, try something new or I will bring up all the Republicans anti war rhetoric after Clinton's Operation Desert Fox and their:

7-30-1996, WASHINGTON -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch said the compromise bill would prevent international terrorist organizations from raising money in the United States and provide for the swift deportation of international terrorists.

The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted. U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for "multi-point" tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities.

Rep. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said technology is giving criminals an advantage. "What the terrorists do is they take one cellular phone, use the number for a few days, throw it out and use a different phone with a different number," he said. "All we are saying is tap the person, not the phone number."

The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak. AP

Note: The senate was controlled by the republicans in 1996. Trent Lott was the majority leader.


Clarke: Bush didn't see terrorism as 'urgent'
9/11 panel hears from Berger, Tenet
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 Posted: 1:16 AM EDT (0516 GMT) CNN
A day of drama at the 9/11 Commission
Clarke: 'No sense of urgency'
Tenet admits 9/11 intelligence failings
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's former counterterrorism chief testified Wednesday that the administration did not consider terrorism an urgent priority before the September 11, 2001, attacks, despite his repeated warnings about Osama bin Laden's terror network.
"I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue," Richard Clarke told a commission investigating the September 11 attacks.

Rice Falsely Claims Bush’s Pre-9/11 Anti-Terror Efforts Were ‘At Least As Aggressive’ As Clinton’s
This morning, in the Fox-owned New York Post, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reacts angrily to President Clinton’s criticisms of how the Bush administration approached the terrorist threat during their first eight months in office. (The Post headlines the article “Rice Boils Over Bubba“) An excerpt:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making “flatly false” claims that the Bush administration didn’t lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.
… “What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,” Rice added.
The 9/11 Commission Report contradicts Rice’s claims. On December 4, 1998, for example, the Clinton administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.” Here’s how the Clinton administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
The same day, [Counterterrorism Czar Richard] Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports. [pg. 128-30]
On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.” Here’s how the Bush administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
[President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so.[p. 260]
We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. [p. 262]

Answer 5

The Democrats are blaming Bush because he didn't go to war while Clinton was still president.
Democrats are a little phony.

Answer 6

because they are stupid...
they have no facts to support their little theories(global warming)
I heard this from someone on my page.
Liberals are like flies. They eat dung and annoy people!

Answer 7

Excellent answer, Dogg! ;o)