Republican Fabricated Murtha Slur

[Lemur]

I don't know how I missed this, but I haven't seen it mentioned, and I remember there were at least three threads about it at the time.

Turns out Rep. Jean Schmidt fabricated the Marine Colonel's lines about Rep. Murtha and cowardice. Here's the source. (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/NEWS01/511220352)


Bubp, who has served in the Marine Corps Reserve for 27 years, including three years of active duty, said he called Schmidt on Friday afternoon to discuss the resolution that called for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq - not to talk about Murtha.

"There was no discussion of him personally being a coward or about any person being a coward," Bubp said.

Clearly, Jean Schmidt didn't read the Republican manual, How To Slime a Decorated Veteran.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Clearly, Jean Schmidt didn't read the Republican manual, How To Slime a Decorated Veteran.

Couldn't resist throwing the flame in there, huh?

Sheesh.

Crazed Rabbit

[Sasaki Kojiro]

*snicker*

[Xiahou]

"There was no discussion of him personally being a coward or about any person being a coward," Bubp said. "My message to the folks in Washington, D.C., and to all the Congress people up there, is to stay the course. We cannot leave Iraq or cut and run - any terminology that you want to use."So, he probably said that line or something very similiar to what was quoted- apparently she took it upon herself to direct it at Murtha personally though.

Personally, I never thought he was a coward. I just think his "plan" is assanine. :san_wink:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

"There was no discussion of him personally being a coward or about any person being a coward," Bubp said.


Could this be a diplomatic answer. She said the same thing. No one was called a coward at any point in her little speech. Now why didnt they ask him directly if he said Cowards cut and run, Marines dont. That is not calling any person a coward its a statement of fact. So he could have said it and still given the answer you quoted.

[Lemur]

Wow, that's a near-Clintonian parsing of the syntax.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wow, that's a near-Clintonian parsing of the syntax.

He certainly had a way with words. But you cant refute what I said now can you?

[Lemur]

Refute? What are you, some kinda forensics/law-student wannabe?

Here's your refutation -- the Colonel clearly describes "people who cut and run" as "cowards." That's assuming he said it in the first place, which is unclear. So he *did* call someone cowards. Unless nobody cuts and runs, in which case nobody is a coward.

God what a silly place to go. The things I do for you, Gawain!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So he *did* call someone cowards

Who? He called cowrds cowards. Its a given their people. He didnt call any particular person a coward. Its you guys who are spinning this. I cracked up when all the dems rose up in indignation when she said that. They took it personal because it hit home.

[Tribesman]

Marines don't cut and run , thats why they are still in Vietnam , Lebanon and Somalia .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Marines don't cut and run , thats why they are still in Vietnam , Lebanon and Somalia .


Because they were ordered to laeve. They most certainly didnt cut and run, And in all these instance as usual they were the last ones out protecting everyone else while they evacuated. Dont try to bash the Corps .

[Tribesman]

Because they were ordered to laeve
So they don't cut and run until some fool of a politician tells them to . Normally the same sort of fool who told them to go there in the first place .

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Marines don't cut and run , thats why they are still in Vietnam , Lebanon and Somalia .
I'm sure you could have held out longer. Be sure to hand out candy to the Ak-toting opposition too.

[Tribesman]

I'm sure you could have held out longer.
Well the Irish army have been in the Leb since '78 so what are you trying to say Capo :san_rolleyes:
If you mean me personally ,then I wouldn't be there in the first place , as I have no intention of signing my life away to the whim of some idiot politician .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well the Irish army have been in the Leb since '78 so what are you trying to say Capo

Yes and how long has the British army been in Ireland? What does that prove?

Again you should learn the meaning of cut and run. In fact in many cases that would be a better stratgey for you yourself to use. Like in this one.

[KafirChobee]

Marines don't cut and run , thats why they are still in Vietnam , Lebanon and Somalia .

First off, the President has since sung Murthas' praises about his heroism, and being a great American and being a misguided SOB.

That aside.

Murtha never said "cut and run", he said we done what we could and now we need to tell the folks there that we went to save when the hell we're getting out. He was compassionate about it, having recently spoken to parents that had lost loved ones to Bushy's fubar (unlike anyone in the Bush goodoldboy cadre of yes-men), but he never said tomorrow - he did say ASAP!

One can grind the mash anyway they want, and make it seem plosable for the true believers. But, for those that can still think? An explanation, besides "trust me" is in order. Murtha is one of those people - a man trusted by the Reagan, Bush41, and Clinton whitehouses. Why not Bush43? Because Bush43 only listens to 5 people (well 4 and god). Bush is so isolated that he has no clue about anything, let alone anyone. He is an indictment waiting to happen, a ............ just wait and see, maybe the boy will become a man, yet.

Doubt it, but? who knows.

[Tribesman]

Yes and how long has the British army been in Ireland? What does that prove?

That even if they stayed for another 20 50 100 or 200 years the end result will be the same .

Again you should learn the meaning of cut and run. In fact in many cases that would be a better stratgey for you yourself to use. Like in this one.
Look at the examples I used Gawain , they cover all the bases .
Cut and run with a negotiated settlement ...end result a balls up .
Cut and run with a timetable...end result a balls up.
Cut and run because it doesn't seem to be working and looks bad on the TV ...end result a balls up .
Each one a humiliating balls up that achieved absolutely bugger all except for a big pie of corpses .
Hence....I wouldn't be there in the first place , as I have no intention of signing my life away to the whim of some idiot politician .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That even if they stayed for another 20 50 100 or 200 years the end result will be the same .


Thanks for proving my point, That their still there certqainly means that in all that time they havent managed to be victorious. Would you think that if the Marines stay in Iraq for anther 100 years that would be better than if they left next year?

As to your examoles none of them are an instance of the Marines cutting and runng. Only by your definition can any kind of claim like that be made, You truly are a stubborn Irishman. Cut and rum mean just that. You drop everything and high tail it outta there. Thats certainly not the case with the Marines.

[Red Harvest]

I don't know how I missed this, but I haven't seen it mentioned, and I remember there were at least three threads about it at the time.

Turns out Rep. Jean Schmidt fabricated the Marine Colonel's lines about Rep. Murtha and cowardice. Here's the source. (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/NEWS01/511220352)


Bubp, who has served in the Marine Corps Reserve for 27 years, including three years of active duty, said he called Schmidt on Friday afternoon to discuss the resolution that called for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq - not to talk about Murtha.

"There was no discussion of him personally being a coward or about any person being a coward," Bubp said.

Clearly, Jean Schmidt didn't read the Republican manual, How To Slime a Decorated Veteran.

I'm surprised at how long this took to show up in the Backroom. I heard this back around the time of the original publication. Probably wasn't covered much by Rush or Fox though.

What is funny is that after the s*** hit the fan about Iraq, Bush and his cronies started to take up the basic approach that many of us have been saying was required and that they and he had been condemning. That is: we are going to leave and soon, so get your act in gear. One thing you can't do with Bush is to give him any time or leeway. He dallies and doesn't finish anything. Put his feet to the fire. I still say 1 year and out. In retrospect, we should have said that two years ago. :san_angry: We probably could have if we had gone in with sufficient force to actually secure the place and weren't chasing Dubya's WMD cover story.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

We probably could have if we had gone in with sufficient force to actually secure the place and weren't chasing Dubya's WMD cover story.


How quickly the memorey fades. Otr is your just a selective memoery. You mean Clintons WMD cover story dont you?


Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
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. I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.
It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.
Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.
Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.
But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

[Kralizec]

What Clinton said or did is completely irrelevant in this context.


Again you should learn the meaning of cut and run.

If that's what you think, then it logically follows you think the same of Schmidt. I'm happy we agree for one occasion :san_wink:

[Red Harvest]

Well of course. We all know that everything that has gone wrong in the past 150 years was due to Bill Clinton as will everything in the next 150 years. :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:

:cheerleader: :elephant: :cheerleader: :elephant: :cheerleader: :elephant: :cheerleader:

Fact is, Clinton didn't invade Iraq, and the statement does not claim that Iraq had WMD's at the time. It is the difference between having reason to suspect something, and claiming to know that it exists, then building a flimsy support for it as Bush did. As we learn more of what Bush was briefed about, it becomes more clear that he had nothing substantial to go on. Hell, I was skeptical when I heard Powell's address. It gave me pause, "That's it???" Why couldn't Bush and his gang see the same thing? Are they that deluded and stupid? Or did they not care?

And we still have a bunch of not so bright and/or deluded Americans claiming Saddam had WMD's when we invaded. Sheesh.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Fact is, Clinton didn't invade Iraq, and the statement does not claim that Iraq had WMD's at the time

Because hes a balless wonder. And not only did he claim that Saddam did have WMDs at that time but that if given half a chance not only would he further develope them but use them as he had done in the past. Spin away all you like.

http://www.sitevip.net/gifs/donkey/2258_animado.gifhttp://www.sitevip.net/gifs/donkey/2258_animado.gifhttp://www.sitevip.net/gifs/donkey/2258_animado.gif

[Red Harvest]

Because hes a balless wonder. And not only did he claim that Saddam did have WMDs at that time but that if given half a chance not only would he further develope them but use them as he had done in the past. Spin away all you like.

No, he has enough sense to run the country with sound fiscal and international policy, totally unlike the fascist twit now in office. I'll leave the spin to Dubya and you.

[Tribesman]

And not only did he claim that Saddam did have WMDs at that time but that if given half a chance not only would he further develope them but use them as he had done in the past. Spin away all you like.


Could you go back and reprint the bit where Clinton said he did have WMDs at that time Gawain ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Could you go back and reprint the bit where Clinton said he did have WMDs at that time Gawain ?


At which time. Besides that irrelevant, He said even if he didnt he would develope and use them again. Does that sound familiar?

[Tribesman]

Besides that irrelevant,
Oh , so despite you saying Clinton said it , and doing a big cut and paste to show he said it , he didn't say it ...rigggght .:san_laugh:
Does that sound familiar?
Does this sound familiar " we know he has them , and we know where they are " ?
So the Clinton administation did a roundabout general statement covering all the bases , but mainly staying with established facts and widely supported credible estimates . And the Bush administration just flat out lied .
So is your hatred of Clinton clouding your perception at all ? it cannot be your love of Bush that clouds it , because as you have repeatedly stated you are not a Bush supporter . :san_wink:
So has your hatred got to the stage where your perception is so clouded that you are virtually blind ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oh , so despite you saying Clinton said it , and doing a big cut and paste to show he said it , he didn't say it ...rigggght .


He didnt say what? No one can obvuscate as well as you. I ask you exactly when you meant and this is your answer? He certainly had then when he used them on the Kurds.


Does this sound familiar " we know he has them , and we know where they are " ?
So the Clinton administation did a roundabout general statement covering all the bases , but mainly staying with established facts and widely supported credible estimates . And the Bush administration just flat out lied .


You just hate Bush, He said exactly the samethings as Clinton. I guess you think Saddam all of a sudden had an epiphany and saw the evil of his ways?

[Kralizec]

Tribesman was very clear Gawain.

Clinton didn't say "Saddam has WMD at this moment". If anything, " He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction," implies that Clinton says he doesn't, at that moment. Clintons entire oratory wich you quoted simply says that Saddam has used WMD in the past, and that there's a risk he'll do it again. Furthermore he says "They (the military action that Clinton is announcing) are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors. "

"Saddam has WMD at this moment" - Clinton didn't make that claim, but he left it open.
Bush, on the otherhand, embraced this claim. In 2002/2003 he was convinced that Saddam had WMD despite Clintons measures to destroy his production capabilities. He made this claim through bold statements, and has ultimately failed to back them up despite having full opportunity to prove his claim.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Tribesman was very clear Gawain.

Clinton didn't say "Saddam has WMD at this moment". If anything, " He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction," implies that Clinton says he doesn't, at that moment. Clintons entire oratory wich you quoted simply says that Saddam has used WMD in the past, and that there's a risk he'll do it again. Furthermore he says "They (the military action that Clinton is announcing) are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors. "

"Saddam has WMD at this moment" - Clinton didn't make that claim, but he left it open.
Bush, on the otherhand, embraced this claim. In 2002/2003 he was convinced that Saddam had WMD despite Clintons measures to destroy his production capabilities. He made this claim through bold statements, and has ultimately failed to back them up despite having full opportunity to prove his claim.

Well he wasnt clear at all but at least you were.

He starts out


Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons
Now you claim hes not saying he has them. This is just a pre emptive strike then?


Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them

Again this indicates to me that like these nations Iraq also has WMDs The only difference being that he has used them.


The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.


So just like Bush the fact that he has them now is irrelevant, He will make and use tham again if we dont do something about it.

You could almost swear this speech was made by Bush if you didnt know any better.

[Tribesman]

Tribesman was very clear Gawain.

Don't worry Strijder , it was clear , but I will play a while , we must always make allowances for the visualy impaired:san_wink:

I guess you think Saddam all of a sudden had an epiphany and saw the evil of his ways?
He did indeed Gawain , he saw the light , he realised it was unacceptable to use WMDs unless you are being backed by the west , it is unacceptable to gas people unless western intelligence is supplying you with the targeting information , and it is certainly unacceptable to use WMDs if you cannot rely on the west to put the blame on the Iranians instead .
Not quite the light on the road to Damascus , but a realisation all the same .

You just hate Bush, He said exactly the samethings as Clinton.
No Gawain , I have an intense dislike of all politicians , Clinton as well as Bush .
Oh.... and he didn't say exactly the same did he .:san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:
Why not try "if you love Clinton so much why don't you go and live there"
It would make just as much sense:san_wink:

[solypsist]

Jean Schmidt, Sept. 6, 2005:
"I pledge to walk in the shoes of my colleagues and refrain from name-calling or the questioning of character. It is easy to quickly sink to the lowest form of political debate. Harsh words often lead to headlines, but walking this path is not a victimless crime. This great House pays the price."

Jean Schmidt, Nov. 18, 2005:
"A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body—that we will see this through."

and the followup to this little "cowards" remark: After 10 minutes, Schmidt asked for and received permission to withdraw her remarks and apologized to Murtha. Had she not done so, she would have faced a possible reprimand for violating House rules against disparaging other members.

[Red Harvest]

Well he wasnt clear at all but at least you were.

He starts out


Now you claim hes not saying he has them. This is just a pre emptive strike then?



Again this indicates to me that like these nations Iraq also has WMDs The only difference being that he has used them.



So just like Bush the fact that he has them now is irrelevant, He will make and use tham again if we dont do something about it.

You could almost swear this speech was made by Bush if you didnt know any better.
It is amazing that you can read the pieces of text you quoted and misconstrue every single one of them. I'm left here just shaking my head in wonder. Did you help Bush interpret the WMD intelligence by any chance? :san_grin:

[Kralizec]

Quote:
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons

Now you claim hes not saying he has them. This is just a pre emptive strike then?

Yes.


Quote:
Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them

Again this indicates to me that like these nations Iraq also has WMDs The only difference being that he has used them.

It doesn't indicate Saddam had any left after using them. This part of the quote doesn't lend very well to either interpretation.


Quote:
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

So just like Bush the fact that he has them now is irrelevant, He will make and use tham again if we dont do something about it.

"the fact that he has them now"?
Clinton left it open wether or not Saddam had weapons at that time, but stated that he might start producing them again in the future. Bush said that he did have weapons, despite Clintons attacks at his production centres and storage facilities. Bush made a bolder statement then Clinton did, and responded with greater force at greater stakes. Clintons statements were plausible, Bush' statements were shaky and were never backed up as promised.

[Xiahou]

Syria agrees to hide Iran's WMDs (http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_10969.shtml)

The London-based Jane's Defence Weekly reported that Iran and Syria signed a strategic accord meant to protect either country from international pressure regarding their weapons programs. The magazine, citing diplomatic sources, said Syria agreed to store Iranian materials and weapons should Teheran come under United Nations sanctions.Good thing Saddam didn't have any WMDs to hide in Syria. :san_lipsrsealed:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Come on Xiahou we all know only Bush believe Saddam had WMDs. Either that or he was just flat out lying about them.