Our Congress

Tags: Congress, Senator Tom Carpenter, bill

ObamaCare

Alternate title: Democrats tell the truth

The Democrats, trying to stiffen their party's spines on the contentious issue, say it's unfair to bar illegal immigrants from paying their own way in a government-sponsored exchange. Legal immigrants, they say, regardless of how long they've been in the United States, should be able to get government-subsidized health care if they meet the other eligibility requirements.

"Legal permanent residents should be able to purchase their plans, and they should also be eligible for subsidies if they need it. Undocumented, if they can afford it, should be able to buy their own private plans. It keeps them out of the emergency room," said Rep. Michael M. Honda, California Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. (link)

At least now they aren't trying to cover up the fact that they believe that the illegal immigrants should get health insurance (yes they still call it 'healthcare') although they stop short of saying the illegal immigrants should receive subsidies for it (that will be next or the amnesty first).

Now if we could get the Obamabots to start being truthful on a couple of other points: 1) it's health insurance you're talking about, not healthcare; everyone in this country has healthcare already; 2) costs; tell the people the real costs and let them decide then (of course this is a big non-starter for the overhaul, but at least you'd be honest) and 3) get a grip on the number of people that actually NEED insurance (not the number of people that do not have it) before you rail against the hundreds of millions of people that are doing just fine the way it is.

The Republican party has been called the party of 'no' by the media and the Democrats (redundancy alert) but in this case a 'no' is much better than the clusterfuck that the Obama administration is attempting to push through.

2nd Ammendment under assault

Ladies and Gentlemen. The Democrat controlled congress and the Obama administration are moving forward with their plans to restrict your 2nd Ammendment rights. There is a bill in the House right now that will do just that. Specifically, it will institute a national gun registry.

This is the type of legislation that gun owners were warning about. Yet there were many gun owning Obama supporters that kept trying to tell us that it will all be ok. He supports gun ownership. Blah, blah.



I present to you. H.R. 45 a.k.a. Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

SEC. 101. LICENSING REQUIREMENT.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(aa) Firearm Licensing Requirement-

(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license--

(A) under title I of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not
been invalidated or revoked under that title; or

(B) pursuant to a State firearm licensing and record of sale system certified under section 602 of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under State law.

(2) APPLICABLE DATE- In this subsection, the term ‘applicable date’ means--

(A) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person before the date of the enactment of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 2 years after such date of enactment; and

(B) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person on or after the date of the enactment of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 1 year after such date of enactment.

SEC. 102. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General- In order to be issued a firearm license under this title, an individual shall submit to the Attorney General (in accordance with the regulations promulgated under subsection (b)) an application, which shall include--

(1) a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant;

(2) the name, address, and date and place of birth of the applicant;

(3) any other name that the applicant has ever used or by which the applicant has ever been known;

(4) a clear thumb print of the applicant, which shall be made when, and in the presence of the entity to whom, the application is submitted;

(5) with respect to each category of person prohibited by Federal law, or by the law of the State of residence of the applicant, from obtaining a firearm, a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited from obtaining a firearm;

(6) a certification by the applicant that the applicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant safely stored and out of the possession of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(7) a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding--

(A) the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(B) the safe handling of firearms;

(C) the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;

(D) the legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including Federal, State, and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements with respect to firearms; and

(E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;

(8) an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant;

(9) the date on which the application was submitted; and

(10) the signature of the applicant.

Democrats and Oil

...are neatly summed up by Michael Ramirez; click to enlarge:

Via Powerline

Democrat Lawyers

I received this,and found it interesting, and most likely accurate. It alludes to the reductionist errors our courts and lawmakers make, while they profess to work for the American people. I cannot fathom why our Supreme Court is allowed to continue to make the absurd decisions they make, many of which ignore the goals of our Constitution.

The Democrat Party has become the Lawyers' Party. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are lawyers. John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for president, is a lawyer, and so is his wife, Elizabeth. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate). Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer.

The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not lawyers, but businesspersons. The leaders of the Republican Revolution were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and, Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.

Read the rest from WM; very good piece on what the American people need to think about.

Tags: A Comment or Two, Wilfred Mann, change, lawyers, business, Democrat, Republican, Lord Nazh

D trumps R (reporting)

On the economy, make sure to follow the link to the good part of the post:

It’s the Politics, Stupid:

Comparing Labor Market Data in 1996 and 2008

Democrats on the Economy in 1996:

“Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades.” (President Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996)

Democrats on the Economy in 2008:

“The bottom line is that this administration is the owner of the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover." (Senator Charles Schumer, Press Release, March 7, 2008)

The Corner
Via Flopping Aces; You can bet your last dollar that if BO or HC wins the next election, the economy will be turning around (in the media) no matter what the numbers say. Likewise if JM wins, the economy will slip into depression (with the same numbers). This is not a new phenomena, just one that people don't seem to believe; and unlike man-made global warming, this one is actually proveable heh

Tags: Flopping Aces, The Corner Review, economy, media bias, MSM, Lord Nazh, Verlin Martin

Your tree or mine?

I saw this story in the local paper and nearly spit my drink out (yes it was that funny to me). It seems that the left (Obama) has no problem with the good Rev's denuciations of this country and roughly half it's people, yet he is very quick to 'persuade' a woman who has pledged to vote for him to step down because she had the nerve (!!!!) to tell kids to quit acting like monkeys.

Here's the headline on a story in the Chicago Sun-Times: "Suburban Obama delegate quits over 'divisive' remark." Here's the subhead: "Says when she called black kids 'monkeys,' she was asking them to get out of tree."

Being a newspaperman of many years, I know a thing or two about headlines. They are supposed to accurately convey the essence of the story. Now, any reasonable person would have a problem with a woman, whether an Obama delegate or not, calling little black children monkeys. If she did. Check out what she really said (emphasis added):

Right Angles

Click over and see what the rest of the story entails. It's a horror piece of PC'ness in a poor Chicago world.

[Main]

Tags: racism, idiots, Chicago, Obama, PC, Right Angles, Lord Nazh, Verlin Martin

Your tree or mine?

I saw this story in the local paper and nearly spit my drink out (yes it was that funny to me). It seems that the left (Obama) has no problem with the good Rev's denuciations of this country and roughly half it's people, yet he is very quick to 'persuade' a woman who has pledged to vote for him to step down because she had the nerve (!!!!) to tell kids to quit acting like monkeys.

Here's the headline on a story in the Chicago Sun-Times: "Suburban Obama delegate quits over 'divisive' remark." Here's the subhead: "Says when she called black kids 'monkeys,' she was asking them to get out of tree."

Being a newspaperman of many years, I know a thing or two about headlines. They are supposed to accurately convey the essence of the story. Now, any reasonable person would have a problem with a woman, whether an Obama delegate or not, calling little black children monkeys. If she did. Check out what she really said (emphasis added):

Right Angles

Click over and see what the rest of the story entails. It's a horror piece of PC'ness in a poor Chicago world.

Tags: racism, idiots, Chicago, Obama, PC, Right Angles, Lord Nazh, Verlin Martin

Tax THEN Spend

A great look at Democratic policies at work (or liberal policies if you want to get 100% accurate):

The Chicago Sun-Times really pulled a whopper in their March 26th piece about a tax on bottled water that the Chicago City Council passed earlier this year. Chicago levied a 5 cent a bottle tax on each unit of bottled water sold in the city expecting to raise $875,000 a month on the tax. But somehow this windfall to the city has yet to be realized with the tax booty so far only amounting to $554,000. Because of this "below expected" revenue the Sun-Times claimed that this shortfall is "exacerbating a budget crunch" for the city.

I'm sorry Sun-Times but a tax shortfall isn't "exacerbating a budget crunch." The city itself is doing the "exacerbating" not the taxpayers. The City Council created a never before heard of tax and then spent the money it assumed it'd get. But then it didn't get it. How can we blame the taxpayers who avoided the tax -- legally avoided it, I might add -- for any "budget crunch"? The budget crunch is the fault of wild spending by the Chicago City Council, not by the taxpayers not being bled enough.

NewsBusters

Click through and read the rest; it's enough to make you wonder (unless of course you believe in the power of the almighty government, then you'll simply wonder at the evil!! of the tax-payers that didn't buy the water).

Tags: NewsBusters, Chicago Sun-Times, taxes, chutzpah, liberalism, Lord Nazh, Verlin Martin

Crucify

Frank Schaeffer's column at the Huffington Post is headlined:

This Good Friday Let Us Not Crucify Barack Obama

Excuse me? Nobody is talking about crucifying anybody. It's just politics, Frank. The three remaining presidential candidates -- Obama, Hillary and McCain -- are all U.S. senators, and should they lose, they'll still be U.S. senators. So to suggest that criticizing them is akin to crucifixion is ... well, maybe it's not blasphemy, but it's pretty ridiculous.

Speaking of ridiculous, here's the first paragraph of Schaeffer's column:

The Other McCain
Great post on the left's obsession with their savior over at tOM (new site to me). Followed a link from Ace I think to get there and liked what I saw on this post and others.

It's scary just how much the liberals have invested emotionally in the Obamessiah meme and just what they will do to keep the train going. I realize that the Hildabeast can't win mathematically but neither can BO. It will take the 'free-will' super-delegates to win the D-nomination and one way or another some group will have a reason to be pissed when it's over.

As a conservative, I'm loving every minute of it. The 'inclusive' left [heh that's like saying Islam is the Religion of Peace] is getting the stereotyping they deserve and the corner they've painted themselves into will be wet when it's over.

The Obama Response

Read this reply to a post over at HotAir and thought it summed up this nicely.

Obama is everything that ever bothered me about the Democrats, embodied in one empty suit. In a country of 300 million, there are thousands of people truly qualified to serve as President. Hundreds of them are black. And this is the best the Democrats could do? An ethically challenged Illinois machine pol with, at the least, a profound tolerance for vicious racist and anti-American views, skating into the election on a paper-thin resume, and forced to spend his campaign time explaining why we should all make allowances for the insane rants he’s quietly bathed in for 20 years? Are there no black Democrats who haven’t had chummy dinners with murderous terrorists, and who could take the campaign stage with a joyous, sincere cry of “God Bless America!” at every rally? I had the same sad feeling after the 2004 elections. The Democrats needed a military veteran to run against Bush… couldn’t they find one who wasn’t a fraud?

Are we asking too much to insist that our presidential candidates be qualified, and their patriotism unqualified?

Doctor Zero on March 19, 2008 at 6:00 PM

A rational reaction and question that I wonder will ever be answered.

tag: Democratic primary, Obama, Hot Air, Verlin Martin, Lord Nazh

Obama isn't (w)right

Ok, I've read the speech (still havn't listened to it, but I will) and basically Obama blames everything on white people again.

He starts out good and then turns the corner and outs his (white) grandmother for being a closet-racist and somehow that makes the good Rev. ok. Every argument Obama puts out there he ties into the past and somehow tries to make it justifiable for a church to espouse the sentiments that this one did.

He claims that he's sure that everyone disagreed with their pastor over the years (nevermind that not everyone's pastor says the same bullshit that this one does) and somehow tries to deflect criticism from himself to everyone listening to him.

This man isn't in the mold of Sharpton or Jackson; he's the updated version of them.

tag: Obama, Clinton, racism, anti-American, politics, Verlin Martin, Lord Nazh

Racism

Barack Obama recently tried to distance himself from his pastor because of his pastor's views about America and white people.

Obama has been a member of his church for 20 odd years, was married by the man, had his kids baptized by the man and just now finds out that the man is crazy? Seems a bit pat to me no? Obama has to believe in what the man does if he stays there; it's not like you'll keep going to the same hate-monger if you aren't a hate-monger yourself.

I've read quite a few good posts at various blogs about this and at almost all of them, some moonbat will be in the comments basically giving Obama a pass because he 'denounced' the preacher man. Of couse when the media FINALLY notices that you are using an anti-American, racist, anti-semitic, hate-mongering idiot as a spiritual advisor; you have to do something to keep your 'Audacity of Hope' going.

This is simply the latest large misstep that Obama has had since he took momentum from the Hildabeast on Super Tuesday. From wanting to bomb Pakistan, the pin, the hand not on heart to his wife's (un)pride in her country; nothing in the man has even hinted that he would be capable of leading this country he loathes so much.

I detest Hilary but at least I believe she would be better for the country than this walking time-bomb. (note: I will vote for McCain and hope he destroys whomever the Dems put out there, but if one of them would happen to win, I think Obama would ruin this country much worse than Hilary could even dream of).


tag: Obama, Clinton, racism, Wright, anti-American, politics, Verlin Martin, Lord Nazh

Name that Party

Hard to really call this one since the person is so well known, but it fits the theme of the game^*.

CHICAGO -- Sen. Barack Obama, seeking to put to rest lingering questions about his relationship with indicted fundraiser and developer Antoin Rezko, met for roughly three hours Friday with investigative reporters and editorial board members of Chicago's two biggest newspapers.

Few details appeared new. Obama revised upward his estimate of the money that Rezko raised for his early campaigns, and he reiterated his mea culpa about coordinating the purchase of his Chicago home with Rezko and buying a piece of an adjoining property from Rezko and his wife.

WashingtonPost

It's only 9 paragraphs but is about a scandal and you can bet if the person was a Republican, it would be in the 1st paragraph. (^*game is from Don Surber)

The great one himself linked (thanks)

Hey Surber readers, feel free to look around the site :) also, does anyone know why this page (the main page) loads correctly in IE but not in Firefox? The site will load in FF but then load some blank page after... any help would be greatly appreciated.

update: It has to be a bad post as lordnazh.com is working fine (to me)

update(update): fixed (I think), not sure what it was, removed some code that was no longer doing anything, but that code had been there awhile so it shouldn't have just started messing up O.o

tag: democrats, name that party, washington post, Don Surber, politics, Verlin Martin, Lord Nazh

Taxes

In a totally surprising move, Congress today showed that when W leaves they will raise our taxes enormously (/sarc).

Both the House and the Senate basically are telling the American people that no matter what you think of your current situation (or what the media tells you to think of it), just wait a little bit and it will get worse.

The Democrats promise to get the books back in the black while making each and every American pay more (the Senate wants some to pay more, and some not) while also raising unemployment and inflation. (ok I made the last part up, but if you take a slowing economy and jump taxes on it, guess what will happen) Of course these votes didn't actually mean anything, they were simply political in nature (which is actually the best kind of votes for us little people; the less that Congress of either stripe actually passes, the better).

The one bill that would have been great for the public probably won't pass however, the earmark one-year ban looks like it will die an agonizing death (hopefully they'll surprise me on that one). Why can't they simply take money from the people that keep bitching that taxes are too low? Do these people not realize that they can simply pay more? Maybe they should try that route.

Went out and played a round of golf today, first time in a couple years that I've been able to get out there. I won't put my score in here so I don't upset anyone (me), but it was fun and hopefully with me living in Decatur, I can do it more often. I need to light a fire under my co-bloggers to get more copy out here, but what can you do :)
Yahoo

tag: taxes, Congress, budget, , earmarks, politics, Verlin Martin, Lord Nazh

The Mainstream Press Never disappoints

NEWS FLASH : Gov. Spitzer in sex scandal !!

Of course, I had to wait 30 minutes on the elliptical at the gym before they mentioned his party affiliation on CNN ( hey, I don't control what is on the screen).

Anyone want to bet on how long it would've taken them to identify him as a Republican if he were one??

Oh yeah...for those who didn't know, that was a clue.

He is a democrat!!

In other news:

Water is wet

The Sun Rises in the East.

That is all !!

tag: democrat, scandal, MSM, New Jersey, Thaiphoon

Chaos - thy name is the democrat convention

So it appears that Barack Obama is going to win the democrat (not capitalized on purpose) nomination and send Hillary into a tizzy that she may never recover from (God willing).

Why would this happen you might ask? Well because democrats are too busy looking at the snake-oil salesman from Illinois with lover's eyes for the past month or so.

What this has done is to kill any momentum that Hillary had and made her look irrelevant and old.

But more importantly, because Hillary had a lead and because too many of the democrat primaries allowed the candidates to actually split votes, this means that the democrat Super Delegates will play a part in the nomination at the democrat convention.

What are Super Delegates you might ask? They are bigwigs in the democrat party ( Congressmen, Part Leaders, etc...).

Why are they important? Because at the convention these Super Delegates get to vote...

ANY WAY THEY WANT !!!

(ed. "Pledged delegates reflect the preferences of the voters, but are not actually legally bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged for." -wiki- it's not just the supers that get to vote how they want ;) --LN)

This means that if Obama and Clinton are tied. Or more ironically, if Obama narrowly leads the POPULAR VOTE with not enough delegates to win outright, Hillary still could get the nomination by swaying enough Super Delegates to vote for her.

What THAT means is that this would be a VERY MESSY democrat Convention.

And THAT ... has me wishing Hillary does well enough to pull close.

Get yer popcorn ready folks !!

Healthcare Debate

tag: Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama. Democrats, debate, Blogpower, Lord Nazh

FemGore

Hillary is attempting to play to the AlGore! crowd now:

While higher fuel effecieny standards and lower emissions are good, the way to go about it is with R&D first and then to start in on the people that don't jump on board AFTER you get the science. Global warming (like global cooling circa. 1975) will fade, but the policies that any of the Democrats would enact would be with us long after the crisis was over.

If the Democrats truly want to help the US get over foreign oil, they should support domestic oil production. ANWAR and off-coast drilling, new explorations and R&D for the removal of oil from shale; all oil that could be brought into refineries without any dollars going to the mad mullahs (or Hugo). Of course if they were serious about the dependency, they would have thought of this already. The 'green' flap you hear is simply pandering for votes.

tag: Clinton, global warming, democrats, oil, Blogpower, LordNazh

For the BDS'er in you

This is mainly for fake accountant since he seems to have a tinge of BDS* going on:

“[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

“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

“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

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 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

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 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

“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” — 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

“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 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

“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002

“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

“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

“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 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

Those are just some quotes from famous RepublicansDemocrats that were stated before the evil Bush took us into this illegal war!@#!!

It is nice to know that you guys think all these people are the biggest idiots in the world to be fooled by W time and time again.
(* Bush-derangement-syndrome)

Filed: BDS, pre-Iraq war, Blogpower, LordNazh, BlogPower, LordNazh