PDA

View Full Version : Ray Nagin.....



krisy
08-25-2006, 12:26 PM
is a totally usleless politician.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/24/60minutes/main1933092.shtml



What does "the hole in the ground" in N.Y. have to do with the ridiculously slow clean up in N.O.? Way to throw the attentin off of yourself, Ray.

Jarod
08-25-2006, 12:29 PM
I think he made a good point!

maineman
08-25-2006, 12:30 PM
the comparison has some validity.... it took a ridiculously long time to clean up ground zero...and it has taken a ridiculously long time to blather back and forth about what to do with it now that it is cleaned up.....

Check out spike lee's documentary about NO....Nagin certainly does not come away from that looking very good, but the feds look terrible!

Jarod
08-25-2006, 12:33 PM
I think its a national embarrassment that we have not already built two towers 10 stories taller than the WTC on that spot.

Think about it, it would be the best message to send to the terrorists ever...

You may hit us, but when you do so we will rebuild fast and better! How discouraging to a terrorist to see a rebuilt twin towers better than the first ones!

Damocles
08-25-2006, 12:35 PM
I agree with Jarod. I stated so the very next day...

robdastud
08-25-2006, 12:37 PM
the comparison has some validity.... it took a ridiculously long time to clean up ground zero...and it has taken a ridiculously long time to blather back and forth about what to do with it now that it is cleaned up.....

Check out spike lee's documentary about NO....Nagin certainly does not come away from that looking very good, but the feds look terrible!

oh please maineman, no they don't half the reason it isn't fixed is b/c its a memorial site and took time to decide what to put there.


two totally separate issues.

krisy
08-25-2006, 12:40 PM
the comparison has some validity.... it took a ridiculously long time to clean up ground zero...and it has taken a ridiculously long time to blather back and forth about what to do with it now that it is cleaned up.....

Check out spike lee's documentary about NO....Nagin certainly does not come away from that looking very good, but the feds look terrible!


I suppose I just have never liked Nagin....I always thought he was a master of spin. Never taking responsibility for anything that went wrong in that situation. I didn't care for his "chocolate city" comment a while back either. I always felt the city/state should have done a way better job responding during that disaster. They have to be the first responders,therefore must be prepared,which they weren't.

Another ongoing argument that will really never be agreed upon by Repubs and Dems...whose fault it was. I felt it was the city/states more than the feds. Some people almost acted like Bush could have done something about the hurricane itself coming!!

Jarod
08-25-2006, 12:41 PM
Were I king, I would have built three towers in exactly the same shape and apperance except 10 stories taller and with a more airplane proof design if one could be done!

Sir Evil
08-25-2006, 12:44 PM
Think about it, it would be the best message to send to the terrorists ever...



While I agree it would be an excellent message it's not better than unity!
You have many already fighting against the thought of rebuilding the towers.

The unity shown after 911 was one of the best things people could of done, show them that life goes on here in America period, but that has long since passed and more can now see the fighting amongst Americans and see one of the big effects of that day.

Sir Evil
08-25-2006, 12:45 PM
Check out spike lee's documentary about NO....Nagin certainly does not come away from that looking very good, but the feds look terrible!

I did'nt see that one but I think Lee is an outright racist! was it at least a fair look at the event?

bob
08-25-2006, 12:49 PM
the comparison has some validity.... it took a ridiculously long time to clean up ground zero...and it has taken a ridiculously long time to blather back and forth about what to do with it now that it is cleaned up.....

Check out spike lee's documentary about NO....Nagin certainly does not come away from that looking very good, but the feds look terrible!

well kinda, the biggest diffrence i see is investigation, i feel the NYC investigation would have been alot more detailed

Jarod
08-25-2006, 12:51 PM
While I agree it would be an excellent message it's not better than unity!
You have many already fighting against the thought of rebuilding the towers.

The unity shown after 911 was one of the best things people could of done, show them that life goes on here in America period, but that has long since passed and more can now see the fighting amongst Americans and see one of the big effects of that day.


I like the idea of Unity.... but not at the cost of following a madman president at all costs... Why not juat have the president agree with and go along with the Democrats for the sake of unity!

bob
08-25-2006, 12:56 PM
Why not juat have the president agree with and go along with the Democrats for the sake of unity!

witch was ?

Sir Evil
08-25-2006, 12:56 PM
I like the idea of Unity.... but not at the cost of following a madman president at all costs... Why not juat have the president agree with and go along with the Democrats for the sake of unity!

LOL, why not tuen it into a bush issue, that did'nt take too long!
Why not just have the dems go along with the other side then? it's a two sided affair Jarod, ya can't have it both ways. There has to a give and take on both sides not on just one, that is not unity at all. Now that is not to defend one side or another but for many issues there is an argument to counter with one way or the other instead of a middle ground.

krisy
08-25-2006, 12:59 PM
I agree it would be a powerful message to have rebuilt fast,but I think they were trying to get a good strong opinion on what the nation thought,as well as the individual families,some of whom may not have wanted them to rebuild.

As someone else said,two different situations. I just think Nagin should worry about what he needs to do,not what anyone else does wrong....that is a good leader in this situation.

Jarod
08-25-2006, 01:00 PM
LOL, why not tuen it into a bush issue, that did'nt take too long!
Why not just have the dems go along with the other side then? it's a two sided affair Jarod, ya can't have it both ways. There has to a give and take on both sides not on just one, that is not unity at all. Now that is not to defend one side or another but for many issues there is an argument to counter with one way or the other instead of a middle ground.


Therein lies the problem with Unity, both sides want their side to be the one you are unified in.

Now I give the Democrats some, not much, credit for trying to go along with Bush. They mostly gave him cart blanch untill reciently. Most of them, wrongly, I belive agreed to let him go into Iraq!

I was all for Unity untill Iraq, at that point the Democrats should have put there foot down, unity was not worth the mess we are currently into.

honorknght
08-25-2006, 01:01 PM
the comparison has some validity.... it took a ridiculously long time to clean up ground zero...and it has taken a ridiculously long time to blather back and forth about what to do with it now that it is cleaned up.....

Check out spike lee's documentary about NO....Nagin certainly does not come away from that looking very good, but the feds look terrible!


BULLSHIT

I worked 3 blocks from there when it happened, it was "cleaned up" within a year, the only thing holding back BUILDING has been what to put there.

Nagin is an asshole for trying to deflect his responsibilities onto NY.

Sir Evil
08-25-2006, 01:05 PM
I was all for Unity untill Iraq, at that point the Democrats should have put there foot down, unity was not worth the mess we are currently into.

Unity was long lost before recently, it's been evident for some time. Tell me sir why many who supported iraq then now are vehemently against it? At the sake of not totally hijacking the thread, I simply seek a reason!

bob
08-25-2006, 01:05 PM
Therein lies the problem with Unity, both sides want their side to be the one you are unified in.

Now I give the Democrats some, not much, credit for trying to go along with Bush. They mostly gave him cart blanch untill reciently. Most of them, wrongly, I belive agreed to let him go into Iraq!

I was all for Unity untill Iraq, at that point the Democrats should have put there foot down, unity was not worth the mess we are currently into.

i dissagree.. i feel the the dems have scince 2000 tring to do anything to get power back... not all but alot of em.. iraq, alot of em were with bush on iraq until the day a us soldier put foot on ground there

bob
08-25-2006, 01:06 PM
BULLSHIT

I worked 3 blocks from there when it happened, it was "cleaned up" within a year, the only thing holding back BUILDING has been what to put there.

Nagin is an asshole for trying to deflect his responsibilities onto NY.

Nagin is an asshole for trying to deflect his responsibilities onto NY


agreed... its a vary lame excuse, but i guess that goes along with a vary lame politician

krisy
08-25-2006, 01:14 PM
i dissagree.. i feel the the dems have scince 2000 tring to do anything to get power back... not all but alot of em.. iraq, alot of em were with bush on iraq until the day a us soldier put foot on ground there



Exactly. I fell they tend to go which ever way the useless polls tell them the citizens are going. Many politicians are looking like fools because they want us to run out of there with our tail between our legs. That sends a bad message to countries like Iran.

Jarod
08-25-2006, 01:15 PM
Unity was long lost before recently, it's been evident for some time. Tell me sir why many who supported iraq then now are vehemently against it? At the sake of not totally hijacking the thread, I simply seek a reason!



The reality of the cost benefit analysis has become clear.

The Congress was duped into supporting Bush, partly for the sake of unity, partally by misleading rhetoric.

I was always against it... I did not belive it to be worth the loss of 1 American life.

bob
08-25-2006, 01:19 PM
The reality of the cost benefit analysis has become clear.

The Congress was duped into supporting Bush, partly for the sake of unity, partally by misleading rhetoric.

I was always against it... I did not belive it to be worth the loss of 1 American life.

well thats what the dems want you too belive.. seems to be working

they got duped into iraq... then why for a decade did they consistintly say that we needed too do excatly what bush has done ?

Sir Evil
08-25-2006, 01:21 PM
The reality of the cost benefit analysis has become clear.

The Congress was duped into supporting Bush, partly for the sake of unity, partally by misleading rhetoric.

I was always against it... I did not belive it to be worth the loss of 1 American life.


Holy moly, the cost benefit is the best you can offer? Any fool who believed the costs would not mount was clearly not thinking. If we are'nt footing the bill for one thing it's another, and now it is going to come down to the cost?

Being against it from the begining is cool, did you forsee a little cost at the time?

It's alwways someone being duped by bush, the guy is a true mastermind according to many like you, I mean the way he all himself creates all these fiascos. Ummm, ya think he just plain masterminded 911 as well?

Jarod
08-25-2006, 01:24 PM
I dont think he planned 9-11... but I listened to his misleading rhetoric in the months leading up to the war in Iraq.

Jarod
08-25-2006, 01:25 PM
well thats what the dems want you too belive.. seems to be working

they got duped into iraq... then why for a decade did they consistintly say that we needed too do excatly what bush has done ?


For almost a decade the Commander in Chief was also the head of the Democratic party... not once did President Clinton move toward invading Iraq with ground troops and never did he sugest using force to overthrow Saddam Hussen.

bob
08-25-2006, 01:27 PM
I dont think he planned 9-11... but I listened to his misleading rhetoric in the months leading up to the war in Iraq.

so did you ignore the left's "missleading rhetoric" for the decade leading up to the war in iraq ?

Sir Evil
08-25-2006, 01:28 PM
I dont think he planned 9-11... but I listened to his misleading rhetoric in the months leading up to the war in Iraq.

Fair enough jarod but at the sake of not changing this into something it's not why not start a whole new thread citing bush's misleading rhetoric, I would love to debate a bit more on this one!

Honestly though if ya didn't know that bush was responsible for 911 then ya probably did'nt realize that he is also responsible for katrina, that is how the two equate here! :p

bob
08-25-2006, 01:30 PM
For almost a decade the Commander in Chief was also the head of the Democratic party... not once did President Clinton move toward invading Iraq with ground troops and never did he sugest using force to overthrow Saddam Hussen.

here take you pick


"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"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 in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"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

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

bob
08-25-2006, 01:33 PM
ooo and alax ... whats this all about?

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm


Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act
Iraq News, SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1998
By Laurie Mylroie
The central focus of Iraq News is the tension between the considerable, proscribed WMD capabilities that Iraq is holding on to and its increasing stridency that it has complied with UNSCR 687 and it is time to lift sanctions. If you wish to receive Iraq News by email, a service which includes full-text of news reports not archived here, send your request to Laurie Mylroie .


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I. CLINTON SIGNS IRAQ LIBERATION ACT, WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT, OCT 31
II. '99 APPROPRIATIONS BILL, IRAQ OPPOSITION, SIGNED BY CLINTON OCT 21
III. INC WELCOMES IRAQ LIBERATION ACT, PRESS STATEMENT, OCT 31

Today is the 89th day without weapons inspections in Iraq and the first
day without UNSCOM monitoring.

"Iraq News" is preparing an issue on Iraq's decision to suspend UNSCOM
monitoring. Meanwhile, this issue deals with the developments
regarding the policy promoted by Congress to deal with the Iraqi threat,
namely to overthrow Saddam.

On Oct 30, Radio Free Iraq began broadcasting. In an Oct 30 press
statement, David Newton, head of RFI, explained "that in addition to
local news about Iraq, programs will focus on democracy, free speech and
human rights. 'Under the dictatorship of President Saddam Hussein,
people in Iraq never a chance to hear about these issues,' said Newton,
a former US ambassador to Iraq. He says broadcasts to Iraq will
eventually expand to six hours a day, airing in the Arabic as well as
Kurdish languages." Transcripts and RealAudio of the broadcasts will be
available at http://www.rferl.org

Yesterday, Clinton signed into law HR 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act
of 1998." In a presidential statement, issued by the White House,
Clinton said, "This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress
that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi
opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the
bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the
current regime in Baghdad now offers. . . . On October 21, 1998, I
signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance
to the Iraqi democratic opposition. . . My Administration, as required
by that statue, has also begun to implement a program to compile
information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity,
and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to
justice those directly responsible for such acts."
Indeed, Sec 590 of the omnibus appropriations bill stated that "not
less than $8,000,000 shall be made available for assistance to the Iraqi
democratic opposition. Of this amount, not less than $3,000,000 should
be made available as a grant for the Iraq National Congress. The
conferees also direct the Administration to provide not less than
$3,000,000 as a grant to the Iraqi Campaign to Indict Iraqi War
Criminals to be used to compile information to support the indictment of
Iraqi officials for war crimes. The conferees direct the Administration
to provide not less than $2,000,000 for the conduct of activities by the
Iraqi democratic opposition inside Iraq."
The president of the INC's Executive Council welcomed Clinton's
signature of the Iraq Liberation Act, in an Oct 31 statement that began
by condemning Saddam's suspension of UNSCOM monitoring, while hailing
the president's signing of the legislation and thanking the US Congress.
The statement concluded, "Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of
any solution in Iraq. Therefore, President Clinton's action today is
the most appropriate response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will
rise up to liberate themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and
that the US is ready to help their democratic forces with arms to do so.
Only then will the trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be
free of weapons of mass destruction."

I. CLINTON SIGNS IRAQ LIBERATION ACT
October 31, 1998
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 31, 1998
Statement by thePpresident
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of
1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that
the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition
that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality
of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime
in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:
The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a
freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that
of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom
at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable
due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis
deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.
The United States looks forward to a democratically supported
regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the
reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these
objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such
changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the
Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in
check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of
the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition
groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a
popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated
and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8
million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition.
This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify,
work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the
Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participatory political system that will
include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required
by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law
105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on
plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My
Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement
a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide,
crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a
step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such
acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional,
discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to
further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other
important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of
U.N. Security Council support [for] efforts to eliminate Iraq's
prohibited weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that
continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to
international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi
opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives
as well.
Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can
effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those
observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998

II. '99 APPROPRIATIONS BILL, IRAQ OPPOSITION
Sec. 590. Iraq Opposition
The conference agreement includes a provision proposed by the Senate
that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the funds made
available in this Act and any prior Acts making appropriations for
foreign operations, not less than $8,000,000 shall be made available for
assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. Of this amount, not less
than $3,000,000 should be made available as a grant for the Iraqi
National Congress. The conferees also direct the Administration to
provide not less than $3,000,000 as a grant to the Iraqi Campaign to
Indict Iraqi War Criminals to be used to compile information to support
the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes. The conferees direct
the Administration to provide not less than $2,000,000 for the conduct
of activities by the Iraqi democratic opposition inside Iraq. The
conferees also direct the Secretary of State to submit a detailed report
to the Committees on Appropriations thirty days after the enactment of
this Act on the implementation of these activities.

III. INC WELCOMES IRAQ LIBERATION ACT
INC Welcomes President Clinton's Signature of the Iraq Liberation Act
London (October 31, 1998)
Following is a statement by Ahmad Chalabi, President of the Executive
Council of the Iraqi National Congress.
Saddam has shown once again that he is irredeemable. His defiance of
the United Nations Security Council and his rejection of all reasonable
attempts to resolve the impasse, which he made, demonstrate that he has
no concern for the well being of the Iraqi people. He puts his power
megalomania above the life and happiness of the Iraqi people.

bob
08-25-2006, 01:33 PM
part 2

The Iraqi people are the first to suffer from the expulsion of UNSCOM
and the cessation of all its activities. They have repeatedly been the
victims of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. They call for the
elimination of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq.
Saddam has pushed further the day when sanctions on Iraq would be
lifted. He has challenged the combined will of the international
community and thus he has opened the door for UN action against Iraq
under Chapter VII resolutions. He is responsible.
Today, October 31, 1998 is a great day for the Iraqi people. Today
President Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. The
American people have given their support for the end of dictatorship and
for democracy in Iraq. The INC welcomes this courageous and historic
action by President Clinton and thanks him for it.
I will begin immediate consultations with leaders in the INC and
others to work for a united response on how best to take advantage of
the provisions of the Iraq Liberation Act. We will present a united
front to maximize the chances of success. We look to President Clinton
to support and work with a united INC to achieve our common goals.
The INC has worked long and hard to energize the conscience of world
to the decades long suffering of the Iraqi people. We have worked hard
to persuade the US Congress for action to help the Iraqi people to
liberate themselves. We thank with gratitude the US Congress for their
support of democracy in Iraq. They have created a strong bond between
the people of the US and the people of Iraq in the pursuit of liberty.
Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq.
Therefore, President Clinton's action today is the most appropriate
response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate
themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready
to help their democratic forces with arms to do so. Only then will the
trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be free of weapons of
mass destruction.

Jarod
08-25-2006, 01:34 PM
here take you pick


"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"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 in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"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

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002


Again, not a single argument for sending ground troops into Iraq...

Sir Evil
08-25-2006, 01:36 PM
:hij: :hij:

bob
08-25-2006, 01:38 PM
Again, not a single argument for sending ground troops into Iraq...

did you read the iraq liberation act ?

bob
08-25-2006, 01:38 PM
:gives:
:hij: :hij:

Sir Evil
08-25-2006, 01:41 PM
:gives:


Ok, I'm good with that! :sexy: anyway! :cof1:

Jarod
08-25-2006, 01:42 PM
did you read the iraq liberation act ?


Was it passed by the majority Democratic party?

Did it call for sending ground troops into Iraq....?


The simple answer AGAIN is, NO!

bob
08-25-2006, 01:42 PM
Ok, I'm good with that! :sexy: anyway! :cof1:

lol thats awsome...

bob
08-25-2006, 01:45 PM
Was it passed by the majority Democratic party?

Did it call for sending ground troops into Iraq....?


The simple answer AGAIN is, NO!

couldnt get too the end or somthing ?

"Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate
themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready
to help their democratic forces with arms to do so. Only then will the
trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be free of weapons of
mass destruction."

Sir Evil
08-25-2006, 01:46 PM
lol thats awsome...

It's true because cypress told me so, and he has....:gpow:

bob
08-25-2006, 01:49 PM
It's true because cypress told me so, and he has....:gpow:

cypress is a he... well .... i thought he was a she... o well that kinda answeres a few things

Jarod
08-25-2006, 01:51 PM
couldnt get too the end or somthing ?

"Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate
themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready
to help their democratic forces with arms to do so. Only then will the
trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be free of weapons of
mass destruction."


1) That does not call for sending GROUND TROOPS to Iraq.
2) That contemplates sending ARMS in the event of a rebellion within Iraq.
3) The act was never passed by the then Democratic Majority!

klaatu
08-25-2006, 01:55 PM
I suppose I just have never liked Nagin....I always thought he was a master of spin. Never taking responsibility for anything that went wrong in that situation. I didn't care for his "chocolate city" comment a while back either. I always felt the city/state should have done a way better job responding during that disaster. They have to be the first responders,therefore must be prepared,which they weren't.

Another ongoing argument that will really never be agreed upon by Repubs and Dems...whose fault it was. I felt it was the city/states more than the feds. Some people almost acted like Bush could have done something about the hurricane itself coming!!


Agree. ..

I wouldnt call him a master of spin .. I would call him the Clown Prince of spin .. and I think it is an embarrassment to the people of NO that they voted his clown ass back in....

The guy is an idiot ... plain and simple.

bob
08-25-2006, 01:56 PM
That does not call for sending GROUND TROOPS to Iraq.

no it dosnt



but did you listin too the missleading rtheoric ?

Sir Evil
08-25-2006, 02:01 PM
cypress is a he... well .... i thought he was a she... o well that kinda answeres a few things

I know he is a he but that does'nt mean that he lacks....:gpow:

bob
08-25-2006, 02:02 PM
I know he is a he but that does'nt mean that he lacks....:gpow:

lol :pke: :pke:

Jarod
08-25-2006, 02:05 PM
couldnt get too the end or somthing ?

"Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate
themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready
to help their democratic forces with arms to do so. Only then will the
trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be free of weapons of
mass destruction."



Where does it call for sending ground troops into Iraq?

When was it passed by a Democratic majority?

Helping a rebellion with arms is not the same as sending ground troops to tople a dictator! Sorry to disappoint you!

bob
08-25-2006, 02:14 PM
Where does it call for sending ground troops into Iraq?

When was it passed by a Democratic majority?

Helping a rebellion with arms is not the same as sending ground troops to tople a dictator! Sorry to disappoint you!

dont worrie, i already said that about the ground troops.. plus i never said that they did call for em,

but in a round about way he did say that we would if they would, but that beond the fact


more or less i was just woundering if you listened to their missleading rethoric about iraq

Jarod
08-25-2006, 02:19 PM
I see the rhetoric, but at leat the goal was not an illresponsable war that cost the lives of over 2500 americans and who knows how many Iraqies!

bob
08-25-2006, 02:25 PM
I see the rhetoric, but at leat the goal was not an illresponsable war that cost the lives of over 2500 americans and who knows how many Iraqies!

then what was the goal insight too the rethoric.

its not like they were just talking about it for fun, and when a new pres gets elected, it dosnt change the way things were. so in essance you cant just put blame on one or the other, both admins were responsable for what intel we had, and if you ask me, the iraq war was a perfect opertunity for the dems too undermine the functionality of our goverment, in other words screw the people to get power.... but that an assumtion

bob
08-25-2006, 02:27 PM
well i got to hit the road, maybe ill check this out when i get home.. if i get time


have a good weekend all