Wacks the political Bee's Nest

[SmootSmack]

Bipartisan laughs:
http://www.jibjab.com/

(did someone post this already? I've lost track)

[NY_Skinsfan]

ok...I can't take it anymore,

Hey SBF,
Not to start anything but "dewd" means Dedicated Electronic Warfare Display (look it up)....I think you mean "dude." If we are all trying to represent educated people in discussions such as this one...let's at least use a spell checker.

[That Guy]

thanks smoot for an insightful essay I'm not sure i'm 100% up on the UN, after seeing France and Russia decide not to help (which is fine, but then) finding out days later they'd been buying oil from Iraq and selling them military gear regardless of the sanctions... and then hear representatives from those countries complain that the UN should be able to control US policy...

I think jibjab has been posted, its pretty funny though and worth seeing again

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

Originally Posted by NY_Skinsfan

ok...I can't take it anymore,

Hey SBF,
Not to start anything but "dewd" means Dedicated Electronic Warfare Display (look it up)....I think you mean "dude." If we are all trying to represent educated people in discussions such as this one...let's at least use a spell checker.

Thanks for the personal attack but I'll spell "dude" the way I want.

Have a great day dewd.

peace
mike

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by offiss

Agreed, it does get tiresome trying to convince people step's are being taken for thier own good, you have to many people out there gladly drinking the kool aid, oh well, I said it before and I'll say it again, you can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him think.

blindly listening to 'the leader' in spite the fact he's clearly been PROVEN WRONG, is way more akin to drinking poisonous kool-aid without thinking.

what knowledge has Bush led us to?

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I'd also like to see a quote where Clinton calls Saddam "A Threat to America." Thanks.

No, I didn't find one saying exactly that, but I didn't look that hard or long either.

First, let's hear a word from our good friend Homer J. Simpson.

"Dear Lord: The gods have been good to me. For the first time in my life, everything is absolutely perfect just the way it is. So here's the deal: You freeze everything the way it is, and I won't ask for anything more. If that is OK, please give me absolutely no sign. OK, deal. In gratitude, I present you this offering of cookies and milk. If you want me to eat them for you, give me no sign. Thy will be done." - Homer Simpson

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton, 1998

"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 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 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 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 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." - 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

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike: (when he struck)
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. ...

[MTK]

Originally Posted by offiss

Well that is incorrect of coarse, they have found sarin gas,which is a WOMD, which Sadam said he didn't have, he also continually denied weopons inspector's access to monitor whether or not he was trying to develope WOMD, as demanded by the U.N. resolution, after the first gulf war, that alone is cause enough to go in and take him out of power, end of story! The fact is, the reason he denied inspector's access is because he was up to no good, which also allowed him time to move any technology that he had out of the country, or bury it, I also ask what WOMD did Bin Laden have? None! Yet he was able to do tremendous damage, and now all I here is liberal after liberal coming out of the wood work, trying to say Bush, who had been in office 8 month's, didn't do enough to prevent it, so now he's doing what he has to do to keep us safe in the future, and all the liberal's say is, why are we going after poor old Sadam and the rest of his regime? Hypocrites! Case and point, both John Kerry, and Bill Clinton, have stated that so long as Sadam is in power America is not safe, they have both stated that Sadam has weopon's of mass destruction, I didn't here any demilib's crying about the great stain maker when he started dropping bomb's on Sadam when Monika's dress was being tested for his DNA, all of a sudden, Sadam was a threat, and soon as the dress incident cooled down, Sadam was no longer a threat, hmmmmm, I have to assume that if Kerry believes as he has stated that Sadam has, or had WOMD, that he would have done something about it, to [in his mind] keep us safe, then I also have to assume that no democrate could vote for him in good conscience, reason? 1, he would have gone after Sadam because of his belief of the danger of WOMD in Sadam's hand's, and of coarse there are none. Or they are there, or wore, and he refuses to do what's neccesary to keep American's safe, by taking Sadam out, and doing what is neccasary to prevent another 9/11 or worse, I am not worried about our children's, children's financial burden right now, I would rather make sure thier parent's are alive to make sure that they are born, how many children wont make it into this world because of 9/11? I bet right now they wouldn't mind having to work, and help pay for this war so they can live, and live in a free country at that.

America Bullies? That's the biggest crock yet! we are not the ones who surpress thier own country men, like half the countries in the world, follow the party line or be jailed, or killed, refusing to allow people to have an opinion other than what the govering authority will allow you, why don't you take a long hard look at how many of his own people Sadam killed, with yes, weopon's of mass destruction! I guess we have our nerve after being attacked on our soil, and watching as 3000 people die because someone just doesn't like us, to now take the initiative to make as sure as possible that doesn't happen again, and if it does, may God forbid! We will be sure to hear how it was all Bush's fault, that he didn't do enough!

If there is any chance that all info on WOMD is wrong, then to bad, it's nobody's fault but Sadam's, he's the one who refused the U.N. resolution, which lead to having to rely on possible speculation, Sadam bare's the responsibility all by himself! Why after 9/11 people would not rejoice at the downfall and removal of this butcher of a leader, is beyond me.

Shouldn't Bin Laden have been our main target from day one? That's what I have a problem with. Saddam is no saint and needed to be dealt with eventually but the person who was behind the whole 911 operation is still out there at large and is still very much a threat to the US, yet I don't see the US going after him with the same fervor we went after Saddam with.

It just makes one question our governments true intentions.

[illdefined]

guys, why talk about two administrations ago?
really guys, don't turn this into a dem vs. repub. thing.
then its really just sticking with your affliations and that
will never come to consensus.

this 'nest wacking' started about this coming election which
is obviously much more relevant and something we can actually
do something about.

we're not voting against a president who lied about a b***job, we're voting on a president who, incompetently (and quite dismissively) misjudged and mishandled a country as an international threat. thousands of lives have been affected and still are at stake here.

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

Can you see why I named this thread "Wacking the Bees Nest"?

lol
They're swarming!!!!!

Have a great day folks
peace

[skinsfanthru&thru]

Originally Posted by illdefined

guys, why talk about two administrations ago?
really guys, don't turn this into a dem vs. repub. thing.
then its really just sticking with your affliations and that
will never come to consensus.

this 'nest wacking' started about this coming election which
is obviously much more relevant and something we can actually
do something about.

we're not voting against a president who lied about a b***job, we're voting on a president who, incompetently (and quite dismissively) misjudged and mishandled a country as an international threat. thousands of lives have been affected and still are at stake here.

what cpayne was showing was that there has been a solid belief based on numerous intelligence reports that saddam had been a growing threat going back to the clinton administration but yet that administration didn't act on its intel. It's kinda funny that u want to bash the current president, who's a republican, for possibly mishandling a very real threat, but yet you want to overlook the facts that the past administration, who was democratic, for talking the talk, but not doing anything about it.

I do agree that bin laden should have been the main target from day one, but just because we aren't hearing about it every day in the news, like the stuff in iraq, doesn't mean that there aren't groups of troops and special ops units hunting him in afgan.

[MTK]

Past administrations dropped the ball as well, but what can we do about it now?? Nothing. But we can do something about the current setup.

C'mon now, we're clearly not going after Bin Laden like we went into Iraq, let's not kid ourselves. We have more cops in NYC then the # of troops we sent in to Afganistan.

If we truly wanted him we would find him.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by skinsfanthru&thru

what cpayne was showing was that there has been a solid belief based on numerous intelligence reports that saddam had been a growing threat going back to the clinton administration but yet that administration didn't act on its intel. It's kinda funny that u want to bash the current president, who's a republican, for possibly mishandling a very real threat, but yet you want to overlook the facts that the past administration, who was democratic, for talking the talk, but not doing anything about it.

well ok, but, um, uh, do something about what? one truck of university Sarin gas? i thought this whole Iraq business did was prove how bad our intelligence is over there and that Saddam was no immediate threat at all. and thats why we're getting a new bi-partisan intelligence director.

heh, at the risk of sounding partisan, maybe Bill didn't have an agenda in Iraq (financial...personal), and didn't think the little intelligence they had was worth a full on unilateral invasion?

[That Guy]

or maybe bill was a pacifist who refused to do anything serious about any of the attacks on american targets that happened while he was in office :P

clinton launched some missiles that set iraq back about 3 hours, got the spotlight off of him, and then forgot about it.

and saddam had plenty of time to send the good stuff to iran or bury it in the sand (good luck finding that)... but it is strange that you'd argue bush sucks cause he wanted saddam out, but not clinton or kerry or hillary, who (at the time) also thought he was worth going after...

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Shouldn't Bin Laden have been our main target from day one? That's what I have a problem with. Saddam is no saint and needed to be dealt with eventually but the person who was behind the whole 911 operation is still out there at large and is still very much a threat to the US, yet I don't see the US going after him with the same fervor we went after Saddam with.

It just makes one question our governments true intentions.

I here ya, But let's face it we have him on the run, the objective is to stop another 9/11, and you have to figure that there will alway's be someone else looking to step up and take Bin Laden's place, times are changing.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Wasn't the serin gas in tiny dosses within a University used for University purposes? Or was that the tiny bit of serin gas found on a farm that they used for something on the farm. Either way it was far from enough to do any sort of real damage.

Couldn't Iraqi citizens make the exact same argument?

Clinton may have said he thought Saddam could be a threat, but he sure as hell didn't reach out and attack him on falacies did he? I'd also like to see a quote where Clinton calls Saddam "A Threat to America." Thanks.

Are you kidding?????? What on earth do you think he was bombing him for????????????????????????