herfacechair
Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
|
rulemylife:
"Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." --Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on looting in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, adding "stuff happens," April 11, 2003 (Source)
What he said right after your first quote:
"They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that's what's going to happen here."
Later on followed by:
Looting, he added, was not uncommon for countries that experience significant social upheaval. "Stuff happens," Rumsfeld said.
Which was a factual statement. Shit does happen, especially when one order is violently overturned. I didn't see any looting going on when I was there, just the progress that Rumsfeld predicted.
"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to imagine." --Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003 (Source)
From the same source:
"I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force, principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular units, should be sufficient."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02
Numbers deployed during the surge: 170,000 troops. The man was right, it didn't take 200,000 that Richard Perle was arguing against.
"Had we to do it over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success, being so successful so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day." --President Bush, telling Time magazine that he underestimated the Iraqi resistance, Aug. 2004 (Source)
I've yet to be in a military operation, or exercise, that went exactly as planed. He wasn't suggesting that he wouldn't have gone in. He's suggesting that he would've done something different. I'm pretty sure that most everybody on this board could look back at what they did in the past, and say, "If I had to do that all over again, I'd take this action, or I'd take that action.
"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." --Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet The Press" March 16, 2003 (Source)
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam Hussein] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them." (Remarks At The White House, 12/16/98)1
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: "In the next century, 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, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." (Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: "[L]et's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too." (Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. ... [T]hey will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us." (Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)
MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, SECRETARY OF STATE, CLINTON ADMINISTRATION: "Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm. In discussing Iraq, we begin by knowing that Saddam Hussein, unlike any other leader, has used weapons of mass destruction even against his own people." (CNN's "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," 2/18/98)
SANDY BERGER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, CLINTON ADMINISTRATION: "Some have suggested that we should basically turn away. We should close our eyes to this effort to create a safe haven for weapons of mass destruction. But imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and someday, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again as he has 10 times since 1983." (CNN's "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," 2/18/98)
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. ... It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis." (Press Conference, 2/23/98)
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): "If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." (Ronald Brownstein, "On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd," Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)2
SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV): "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th that question is increasingly outdated." (Congressional Record, 10/10/02)
SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV): "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. ... [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. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly." (Congressional Record, 10/10/02)
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." (Congressional Record, 10/10/02)
Tim Russert: "Do you believe we could have disarmament without regime change?"
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): "I doubt it ... I can support the President. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interest of our national security." (NBC, "Meet the Press," 9/15/02)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that." (NBC, "Meet the Press," 11/17/02)
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY): "[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and 10 potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States." (Congressional Record, 10/10/02)
HOWARD DEAN, CURRENT DNC CHAIR, FORMER GOVERNOR OF VERMONT: "There are such a thing as international outlaws. I'm not sure if China is one, but I'm quite sure Iran and Iraq are." (CBC/PBS, "The Editors," 1/31/98)
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (FORMER D-SD): "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. It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction." (Congressional Record, 2/12/98)
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): "We had to attack. [President Clinton] had to do what his military advisors told him he should do ... Now is not the time for second-guessing or partisan finger-pointing. National security concerns must come first ... [Saddam Hussein] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction." (From Brendan Riley, "Nevada Leaders React To Iraq Bombing," Associated Press, 12/26/98)3
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (FORMER D-NC): "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons." (MSNBC, "Buchanan And Press," 1/7/03)4
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): "I have no doubt Saddam Hussein is lying. He has lied countless times before. He is likely hiding weapons, including chemical and biological weapons. The U.N. Inspectors' Report leaves little doubt of that." (Congressional Record, 1/30/03, p. S1782)5
"I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons." --Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, June 24, 2003 (Source)
To contend is to assert. You're saying with strong certainty that something is the case. If you contend that a certain fetish is better than the other, then you strongly believe that your selected fetish is better than the others. When someone says, "we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." You're not contending something. That doesn't demonstrate a strong belief that something is the case. If you "believe" that your fetish is the best, then you're not putting as strong emphasis as you would if you contend it to be the case. It's like you saying, "I believe," so. You're giving yourself room to maneuver if you're not right.
_____________________________
As long as I have a face, beautiful women have a place to sit.
http://herfacechair.blogspot.com/ & http://twitter.com/herfacechair
Final Say: http://vox-ultima.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html
|
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread