Archive for May 19th, 2007

Somebody Lied

hear-no-speak-no-speak-no.jpg Many of these dates are pre 1/20/2001 (inauguration of GW Bush).  Additionally, many of the people on this list spoke equally as eloquent on the topic of the right to life of the unborn until they changed tunes as Presidential opportunities opened up.  Today you only hear that fact discussed in the mainstream media about certain Republicans that made the same switch.  And you hear nothing about the pronouncements by these Democrats concerning Iraq in the 1990’s and early 2000’s as we ran up to the 2nd Iraqi war.  It should be noted that it was the policy of the United States established by Public Law 105-338 titled the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998” passed by the Congress of the United States and signed by President Clinton which provided for “regime change” in Iraq and this law was proffered by both President Bush and the Congress in support of their enactment of Public Law 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002 “Authorization to Use Force in Iraq.”

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” – President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” – President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” – Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” – Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sen… Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D – MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” – Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop p longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” – Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen…. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” – Sen…. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” – Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” – Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” – Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

The Duchy of Grand Fenwick

the-mouse-that-roared.jpg Some of the most prosperous nations in the world (notwithstanding the resource endowed countries of the Middle East) are so not only because we were once at war with them, but because the U.S. won.  They United States has a history of defeating countries and then re-building them and set up their government and economies (in some cases) then turning them free to grow and prosper, which they have.  [Noted example is Japan and Germany, but not limited just there at least in effect.] 

One example is a country that was never at war (at least open war) with or in the America (other than how you might score the French & Indian war in the Colonial Days).  We came to the aid of France in both WWI and WWII.  Though they were not “defeated” by the U.S. they were the beneficiary of U.S. assisted reconstruction.  This aid was provided in 1918 for WWI and 1947 for WWII.  If you take the amount supplied to only France (AS A LOAN) and bring that calculation forward to 2004 (the date I prepared this study) you will find that at an interest rate of 4% the amount that France would be indebted to the U.S. is 101.6 Billion Dollars.  I say “would” because there is no (nor has ever been) any intention on France’s part to repay the U.S.  It is the U.S. that suffered the economic loss of France in both wars and it is France that benefited from U.S’s generosity.   So you can plainly see that it has been profitable for countries to either be at war with the U.S. or have that war merely occur on your soil.

This brings us to the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.  The Duchy was a mythical small nation that plotted to declare war on the United States and subsequently surrender and in losing come under some type of Marshall Plan for their economic survival.  This story is captured in the Peter Sellers 1959 classic “The Mouse that Roared.”  It is a good movie and is totally hilarious.  But I mention this today because it seems to me that there are a number of countries out there that perceive the U.S. in the same way that the Grand Duchy did. Most notably in this case is the nation of Mexico.

Listen, I don’t want to denigrate the aspirations of good people that want to provide something better for their children, but I am really getting fed up with the entitlement attitude of many of these countries have towards the US, and when they meet any resistance they start claiming “racism” and statements that say this is why U.S. is so unpopular in the world.  But on the other hand why shouldn’t they consider the U.S. as their entitlement benefactor, we have demonstrated this as a matter of policy within our own borders.  But the world is adopting a Dutchy of Grand Fenwick attitude towards the U.S. and there are an awful lot of Americans that are buying into it.  Sorry…………..just had to say it.

May 2007

Blog Stats

  • 7,404 hits