Liberals, Does this prove that Nancy Pelosi is completely incompetent, or that you are a hypocrite?

Question

She admits to being on the "permanent select committe on intelligence" for 10 YEARS!!!!!!

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002

---

SO WHICH IS IT:

1. ARE YOU A HYPOCRITE WHO SUPPORTS A LIAR,
2. IS NANCY SO INCOMPETENT, THAT FOR TEN YEARS SHE THOUGHT THERE WERE WMD, WHEN THEY DID NOT EXIST
3. THERE ACTUALLY WERE WMD IN 2002?

----


ARE SOME LIBS CLAIMING SHE WAS LIED TO BY THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION REGARDING WMD??????????? OMG!!! ARE YOU BLAMING CLINTON FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ?

Answer 1

Pelosi KNOWS she screwed up and had to admit she was in on this a lonnnnnnnng time ago.

Here are the EXACT Dem quotes beginning in 1998 during the Clinton Administration:

"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 seing 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 alway s 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

You know, I think people focus their time on minor things as such. The intelligence at the very minimum was faulty, that is undeniable. One reason that the United States knew that they had WMD's was because who gave them WMD's? The USA.

The democrats want to stop this frivolous waste of money, energy, and more importantly the amount of casualties. It was not Representative Pelosi's responsibility to outline what was going to happen, or, what was to happen with Iraq. Rather than let an Iraqi court, or, the United States judge Saddam Hussein was detrimental to the legitamicy of the 'new' Iraq. Furthermore, it is undisputable that one cannot build a government, especially a democracy, over night. To impose one's ideology on a nation just makes more anger. For example, what would happen if an Arabic nation came to the United States, took out and killed our president (subjective but go with it for a second) and then told us how to run our country. I don't thing anyone would be jumping up or down. Now given, our president has not done such atrocities, but, we live in the western world where litigation is vital. Instead of being a one man show, Bush should have used the international arena to deal with this issue, he simply thumbed his nose at such an idea. Yes, some states gave troops and the whatnot. So what? To have a few countries does not garner enough support. Especially when over half of the 'service' economy states had abstained.

Were there WMD's who cares? It is frivolous to argue about it now- It's a little to late to care.

Answer 3

She's a politician...even worse a liberal leftist, so that makes her a professional liar...for the idiot who brought up the crisis at walter reed and how it shows we rushed troops ill prepared for battle...I am getting so sick of this dem/lefty talking point. I spent 4 years in the Marines and we trained our asses off...but when the flag goes up you deploy with what you have...you never have enough or everything you want...but what the us military does have is the best in the world...so stop with the ill prepared crap you idiots. BTW walter reed was a run down hospital when i was there 15 years ago...so this is nothing new.

Answer 4

Apparently, quite a few here do not know who was President in 1998, or they believe Bush was some how in charge three years prior to 2001 when he took office. Maybe you should have stated these speeches were made when William Jefferson Clinton was President.

I guess it does not matter who was in charge when. It only matters what is perceived to be truth. The real truth means nothing unless it can be used to trash the person in charge.

Answer 5

OR 4 -- The Bush administration made everyone think Saddam had WMD's enough to make everyone want immediate action taken against them -- as it was made to appear as it was an emminent danger -- which we are now finding it wasnt!

If youre bring up that PAST -- lets not forget that nice little report left on CONDI RICES DESK by Clinton administration that warned of Bin LAden as immenent risk!

And lets not forget that Saudi Arabia offered Bin Laden up to us, Before 9/11, to Ari Fleisher on T.V., yet no one did anythign from the Buish administration

Yet another weak attempt at repubs to pass the buck, and try clouding the issues when they arent really having a good week.
1) libby guilty
2) 8 State Attonreys fired for not pressing charges against Dems before the last election.
3) Walter Reed scandal that brings us to the lack of preparedness to our troops who are rushed into battle, ill prepared.
then get their and are ill equiped.
then if they get injured get neglected
ooh yeah, when Bush is trying to cut funding for theVA even more

Answer 6

first off... I DON'T LIVE IN CALIFORNIA... I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HER... and to be frank, she's not my favorite politician... so, I didn't support her, I didn't vote for her... we all don't live in California... or do you vote for every senator in every state?

so... I would kind of lean to number 2... and I think she would tell you herself that she made a mistake... and she should have done her homework a little more...

and even though I'm not a big fan, at least she learned from her mistake... more than I can say for Republicans...

Answer 7

4. You...much like many idiots struggling to be morons...tell half the truth & think you've formed a thought.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I support her specifically, it's just that your argument is poorly, publicly made & therefore subject to ridicule.

Answer 8

Speak kindly of Hilary's running mate.

Answer 9

When you're being fed lies it's difficult to know isn't it? No one said she was clairvoyant. Nobody knew for sure what was going and how could they? You have to rely on the information you're given and hope to hell you can trust that information and the source.

Answer 10

Or option #4, you are a cement-headed Bushwipe who can't accept responsibility for his unending string of failures, incompetence and outright lunacy?
My vote is #4.
Seek mental help.