Please help me Im tired

[Mobius]

Someone I know posted this in their LJ, and is spazzing out into rabid Republicanism. Please help me refute these claims one by one. My thought on most of them, was that they were words picked out of a much larger whole, to look damning to Democrats. Funny how this shit slinging is getting worse, the closer november nears. I dont know if I can take it much more. Anyway, here are the quotes this person posted:

am Email i received <11 Aug 2004|08:29am>
Subject: Here's where Bush got his marching orders;

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 - 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 , 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

We 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 (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), 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 invigorated 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, December 5, 2001

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant
and 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 seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction.- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA),
Sept. 27, 2002

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 Rockefeller (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 an! y 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 weapon 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. - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec.! 8, 2002

Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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

SO NOW THESE SAME PEOPLE SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !

TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR.

Send this to everybody you know. The networks won't do it. It's up
to us to get the word out.



:puke:

[silverweb]

1. This one's old news.

I've already posted my rebuttal in the past, which mainly consists of pointing out gap in the time line. Then I provided the Rice/Powell assertions (and video clips) in 2001 that Iraq's military was decimated and no threat to anyone. I can email same to you, if you'd like....

[Mobius]

9. yes please do

thanks

[liberalmuse]

2. Okay...

I don't think I'm going to be successful in refuting this because I'm a bit drunk, but I do know that WMD's are NUCLEAR WEAPONS. NUCLEAR WEAPONS are the only WEAPONS that can cause MASS DESTRUCTION. Period! I heard a story where law enforcement were trying to charge a teen who was found with pipe bombs in the back seat of his car with carrying 'WMD's'. BULL-SHIT!!!! I was an NBC Specialist in the Reserves, and while I may not be an 'expert', I was trained to know what certain chemical, biological and nerve agents would do to a population. They can do significant damage, but they will not cause 'mass destruction'. True, Saddam may have had such agents, and perhaps it was unknown if he was trying to develop nuclear weapons in the near future, but the fact is, Resolution 1441 was implemented so we could find out for sure if these 'what if's' had any credence to them. Bush chose not to follow Resolution 1441 because he had a hard-on for war--a war that had been planned by the 'neo-cons' for many years. And these fucking Republicans have the nerve to use quotes from Democrats they normally slander and discount to prove their case? Flush this crap. It's not worth it. These people are insane.

[kiahzero]

3. Um, no

"WMDs" as a term refers to chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

[nickgutierrez]

4. I'll smack it down

I'm already on your buddy list, anyway. :)

EDIT: I'm an idiot. I read it too fast and thought you meant somebody posted this on yours.

The fact remains that nobody has found anything in Iraq. No WMD, no terror links, nothing that would make the war a reasonably decent enterprise. I've never understood what the point of this email was. To show that the Democrats, when taken out of context, made statements about the war that turned out to not be the case? If that's the case, it's because they were misled, by bad intelligence given to them by what should have been a known partisan source, in the Office of Special Plans (not entirely sure about the name).

[silverweb]

5. Here it is, for what it's worth.

Snopes did a good job on showing how many of the quotes were incomplete and/or taken out of context. I added my own observations and comments:


This particular list of quotes is not new, but has been making the rounds for some months now and I've seen it several times in the course of my routine debunking efforts. It is immediately suspect in that it bears the defining characteristics of RW spam:

(1) Unsupported statements (or accusations/allegations), without documentation. (In this case, no verification given for any "quotes.")

(2) Incomplete, out-of-context, or false information given. (In this case, quotes are "cherry picked," with glaring omissions.)

(3) Final exhortation/instruction given to "pass this on to as many as you can," thus propagating the lies and/or misinformation.

The fact that names and dates are attached to the quotes means nothing, since no sourcing or verification is offered. For all I know, they could have been made up just for this email. However, I'm inclined to accept that that they are at least semi-legitimate, although perhaps taken out of context. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what happened, according to Snopes. I know you don't like reading web sites, but the article (with references) at Snopes is quite lengthy, so you'll have to go read it if you're at all interested in the truth:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

My own observation, even before reading the Snopes research, was that the time line for these quotes was suspect. The first group ends in November 2000 -- after which there is a long, obvious gap -- with the next batch dated December 2001 through January 2003. In other words, the quotes provided were either too old to be relevant (1998-1999) or were preceded by months of Bush propaganda and fabricated "evidence" post 9/11.

Very conspicuously missing in this lineup (besides context and verification, of course) are the documented comments by Bush's National Security Advisor, Condi Rice, and Secretary of State, Colin Powell, that Iraq had "a decimated military, no significant capabilities regarding WMD, and was so feeble that it couldn't even threaten the countries around it with conventional military power." See the following for documentation and even video clips:

2001: Powell & Rice - Iraq Not a Threat
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

February 2001: Powell Declares Iraq Has No WMD
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd-original.htm

November 2001: WMDs Easiest Justification to Invade Iraq
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aes.ACYn7NfQ&refer=top_world_news

So, now we know why the list of quotes has that oh-so-huge gap between 1999 and late 2001. The GOP, liars and master manipulators that they are, left that gap deliberately in just another attempt to foist their twisted version of events on us as truth.

Don't accept any emailed information as fact on face value, and don't forward it without verifying it first. Dumb suckers and idealogues do that.

[shance]

7. Rock on Silverweb***Looks like you struck some gold.

mobius will be pretty jazzed to see this.

[silverweb]

8. Thanks!

I sure hope it serves mobius well... and anyone else who wants to use it. I received the same RW email from a few different people, so it was well worth putting some effort into a slap-down response.

Typically, none of the original senders has responded.

:evilgrin:

[Mobius]

10. ok nm the email then

thank you for your help :yourock:

[shance]

6. Wish i could be more help mobius.

Those are interesting quotes and may reveal some rather unflattering spinelessness
on the part of some of our Democrats.

However, unlike Republicans, I believe we actually want to know the truth, and I think most of us own up when we make mistakes. (Kerry gets a d-merit for not owning up to his mistake in voting for the resolution today).

I am not sure why they have parroted these accusations of WMD. However, some of the earlier quotes reveal that Democrats were actually doing their job by exposing the potential attacks that could potentially occur. Unlike the the Condi gal, who apparently was using the Hart/Rudman report as a coaster for her coffee.

What these quote ultimately confirm to me one more time is how much these two parties sound more and more alike.

I wish I could help you on this more mobius :(

You might want to focus on issues where there is more of a distinction in differences. This looks like it could be a valid argument on your friends part. Then I could be wrong. I would imagine some of these legislators would say that these quotes were made as a result of information they received from the White House, but I dont know and they arent saying in the quotes they received their information from the Bush Administration.

[sandnsea]

11. Inspections, inspections, inspections

That's why Kerry voted to deal with Saddam, all that stuff you quoted. Suspicion of Saddam's behavior, need to get inspectors into Iraq, hold Saddam permanently accountable to the disarmament process. But what the Administration did with the intelligence between Oct & March, the disregard of the inspections process and other scientists' opinions, THAT is when Bush lied.

And, they are taking Kerry's 2003 comments out of context. Disarmament is a process that includes full disclosure and cooperation, present and future. Saddam was dangerous, nobody said otherwise, ever. The threat of Saddam with weapons is a dangerous threat, just like the threat of a dog with rabies is a dangerous threat. Doesn't mean the dog HAS rabies, means if a dog GETS rabies, it would be dangerous. And the rest of that speech clearly states Bush must not rush to war and must work with the international community.

We didn't need to go to war when we did. There was no imminent threat, no reason to rush in when diplomacy options were still available, when the inspectors weren't finished, certainly no reason to rush when we didn't have properly armed troops or a plan to complete the mission. John Kerry wouldn't have.