Do you remember what Nancy Pelosi said before the Iraq war?

Question

Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 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."

Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Answer 1

And look what other Dems said...

*Al Gore-

September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

December 16, 1998
"[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."

September 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."

*Hilary Clinton-

October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."

January 22, 2003
"I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

*John Kerry-

February 23, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

January 31, 2003
"If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn't vote for me." I love that one!

October 9, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

*Madeleine Albright-

November 10, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."

As you can see, Democrats are a bunch of hypocrites.

Answer 2

Jeff, while I'm in agreement with you, couldn't you combine these into one question? Then again, people tend not to read more then a line or two so maybe it is for the better.

Ol' Sadam was certainly good at something: deceit. He fooled the world's intelligence community enough that there were conflicting assessments on whether or not he had WMDs and even kept the secret from their own military. Via interrogation of the former Iraq's military leaders and Sadam himself, it is known that the Iraqi military found out about the lack of WMDs from Sadam when they asked permission to use it on the allied militaries in the early stages of the second Iraq war. He had convinced himself that the reason George HW Bush gave in to practically all his demands after he was defeated in the first war was that the USA would never take out a secular Islamic state that bordered Iran and he considered Iran the most likely to invade a weakened Iraq. He wanted to fool Iran and had to fool the west to do so and it cost him big time! Facts truly are stranger then fiction.

Answer 3

properly, possibly he could have listened to the George Bush Sr. In his memoirs, a international switched over, written greater effective than 5 years in the past, George Bush, Sr. wrote right here to describe why he did no longer flow after Saddam Hussein on the top of the Gulf conflict: "attempting to get rid of Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political expenses. Apprehending him grow to be in all possibility impossible ... we could have been compelled to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there grow to be no workable "go out technique" shall we see, violating yet another of our concepts. besides, we have been self-consciously attempting to set a development for dealing with aggression interior the positioned up-chilly conflict international. moving into and occupying Iraq, subsequently unilaterally exceeding the United countries' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international reaction to aggression that we was hoping to verify. Had we long previous the invasion course, the U. S. ought to conceivably nonetheless be an occupying means in a bitterly antagonistic land."

Answer 4

I remember this. I also remember John Kerry supporting the war, then not, then supporting the war then not...on and on untill Bush won because no one wanted a flip-flopping pansy as president...

Answer 5

Sure WE remember that, but the MSM and congress, never remember such statements. That's why blogs will be many an elected officials downfall.

Answer 6

I known she flip flop on the war was going bad its easy to see that she helped take the credit when we caught Sadam.

Answer 7

Finally, she said: "Where the Hell is Iraq?"

Answer 8

no!!!!!! you just made that up. right?