On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:11:38 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

Excellent point!

And very true. I know a number of shops that simply are holding back
from new hires for this very reason.

Gunner


You don't know **** moron. If any shop can grow they will do it. All
you know is lie after lie. There are plenty of machinist jobs. They
are holding out for lower wages if anything. Look on Craig's list
fool.

It must really suck to be a stupid as you Gumby.

"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 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 redefine 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."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"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
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and th! e 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

"[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

"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 "[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

"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

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:12:32 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:


Your lies and attempted diversion is noted with huge amusment


No lies. Pure fact. You don't recognize the truth Winger.

"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 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 redefine 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."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"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
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and th! e 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

"[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

"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 "[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

"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

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:13:48 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:


And hey..where is that pesky 2011..and 2010 budget?

Laugh laugh laugh!!

Gunner

Glad to see you admit the right has been working against American job
creation.

"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 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 redefine 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."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"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
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and th! e 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

"[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

"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 "[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

"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

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
The National Debt continued to increase.

NO, it didn't--it actually declined...by over a trillion dollars, in
fact
1996 US cumulative debt = 5.106 trillion

1997 US cumulative debt = 5.042 trillion

1998 US cumulative debt = 4.897 trillion

1999 US cumulative debt = 4.667 trillion

2000 US cumulative debt = 4.248 trillion

2001 US cumulative debt = 4.022 trillion

[...]

2011 US cumulative debt = 14.8 trillion

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
The National Debt continued to increase.

NO, it didn't--it actually declined...by over a trillion dollars, in
fact
1996 US cumulative debt = 5.106 trillion

1997 US cumulative debt = 5.042 trillion

1998 US cumulative debt = 4.897 trillion

1999 US cumulative debt = 4.667 trillion

2000 US cumulative debt = 4.248 trillion

2001 US cumulative debt = 4.022 trillion

[...]

2011 US cumulative debt = 14.8 trillion


But the discussion was about how the total debt had been declining under
Clinton, not about whether Bush caused it to begin rising again.

( the RED line )

http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...hic/39255812/1

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:05:22 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
The National Debt continued to increase.

NO, it didn't--it actually declined...by over a trillion dollars, in
fact
1996 US cumulative debt = 5.106 trillion

1997 US cumulative debt = 5.042 trillion

1998 US cumulative debt = 4.897 trillion

1999 US cumulative debt = 4.667 trillion

2000 US cumulative debt = 4.248 trillion

2001 US cumulative debt = 4.022 trillion

[...]

2011 US cumulative debt = 14.8 trillion


Ooops....Seems as though sombody doesnt have a clue...does he?

Allen Drake on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 04:11:27 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

More denial from the mentally twisted Alien Duck

Where are the jobs winger? Where are the jobs?

Good question Duckey Boi..ask YOUR PRESIDENT!

laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh!!!

Gunner

They are in the Jobs Bill that the right refuses to pass. The right
has been obstructionist since the beginning.

I hate to break this to you, but Harry Reid is a Mormon, not a
Republican. If you had checked the newspaper in the graduate lounge,
you might have (I say might, because the MSM is working hard to
protect the Democrats from Obama and vice versa) learned that it was
the Democrats in the Senate who sank Obama's bill. OTOH, there is an
"American Jobs Creation Act" in the House, HR 2911. Interesting
read, but it certainly won't clear the Democrat controlled Senate, or
the Democrat controlled White House.
--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and why it is Geroge Bush's fault.

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 04:42:20 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 03:56:57 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:


WMD supplied by Reagan had been destroyed long before Bush lied to ge
the US involved and many believed his lies.

You simply cant make a single post without lying your ass off, can you?

But then..you are a low life scumsucking piece of dreck mentally ill far
leftwing extremist fringe kook. So its hardly surprising.

I strongly suggest you review who was on the House Intelligence
Community.

Obviously..it wasnt you. You can only make 1 out of 3.

Gunner

So you say they weren't destroyed?

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/a...rming_iraq.php

If it wasn't Reagan than who was it?

February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan
removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq.

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States
weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq.
These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act.

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given
intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using
chemical weapons against the Iranians.

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense
Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship
and materials support.

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate
its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological
exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21
batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

And the beat goes on Gumby. You are proven to be a stupid liar here
now haven't you.

Wahahahahahaha................

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:15:31 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:03:24 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 04:42:20 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 03:56:57 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:


WMD supplied by Reagan had been destroyed long before Bush lied to ge
the US involved and many believed his lies.

You simply cant make a single post without lying your ass off, can you?

But then..you are a low life scumsucking piece of dreck mentally ill far
leftwing extremist fringe kook. So its hardly surprising.

I strongly suggest you review who was on the House Intelligence
Community.

Obviously..it wasnt you. You can only make 1 out of 3.

Gunner

The right supplied terrorists with WMD. No lies. You are the only one
that lies here.

Bush lied thousands died. The war in Iraq was a mistake made by the
right. Lies were told intentionally by Bush.

Did or did not Reagan supply Iran with weapons? If you answer no then
you know you are a liar.

The recession was caused by Bush and no one else. To bad you don't
like it. It must really such being you.

So why are we still there?

VBG Your Obamassiah promised to pull the troops out within 6 weeks of
his election. Some 3 yrs ago. So evidently he like you..is a liar.

We are leaving like he promissed. When Bush lied thousands died but
that is fine with a sick winger like you.



And one assumes...like these Democrats too? Odd how many of them are
ranking members of the DNC..or presidents and political
candidates...isnt it?

VBG

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

These weapons that are being refereed to are the ones supplied to
Saddam by the right. They were proven not to be there when Bush lied
and said they were.

Man you are one stupid winger Gumby.

Why did Bush finally admit he was wrong if he was right?

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/8/2...ts_iraq_had_no


Wahahahahaha..............


"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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 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 redefine 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."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"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
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and th! e 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

"[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

"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 "[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

"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

In article ,
Allen Drake wrote:

election. Some 3 yrs ago. So evidently he like you..is a liar.

We are leaving like he promissed. When Bush lied thousands died but
that is fine with a sick winger like you.

The campaign promise was within 16 months of election. That would
make it around April of 2009. He is going to be more than 2 years
behind. Under your theory this makes it a lie.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:50:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Allen Drake on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 04:11:27 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

More denial from the mentally twisted Alien Duck

Where are the jobs winger? Where are the jobs?

Good question Duckey Boi..ask YOUR PRESIDENT!

laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh!!!

Gunner

They are in the Jobs Bill that the right refuses to pass. The right
has been obstructionist since the beginning.

I hate to break this to you, but Harry Reid is a Mormon, not a
Republican. If you had checked the newspaper in the graduate lounge,
you might have (I say might, because the MSM is working hard to
protect the Democrats from Obama and vice versa) learned that it was
the Democrats in the Senate who sank Obama's bill. OTOH, there is an
"American Jobs Creation Act" in the House, HR 2911. Interesting
read, but it certainly won't clear the Democrat controlled Senate, or
the Democrat controlled White House.
--
pyotr filipivich

Alien Dreck is such a ****ing retard. Stupid as a bag of road kill.

Ever post he makes shows it like a road flare.

Gunner

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 03:42:39 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq.

So Helicopters are WMD?

You are such a ****ing retard Im doubtful you can cross the street
without a keeper.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 03:49:40 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:


VBG Your Obamassiah promised to pull the troops out within 6 weeks of
his election. Some 3 yrs ago. So evidently he like you..is a liar.

We are leaving like he promissed. When Bush lied thousands died but
that is fine with a sick winger like you.

He promised to pull out 6 weeks after his election. So he, like you..is
a ****ing liar.

And your own words prove it!

Laugh laugh laugh! What a ****ing retard you are!

Gunner

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:27:20 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Allen Drake wrote:

election. Some 3 yrs ago. So evidently he like you..is a liar.

We are leaving like he promissed. When Bush lied thousands died but
that is fine with a sick winger like you.

The campaign promise was within 16 months of election. That would
make it around April of 2009. He is going to be more than 2 years
behind. Under your theory this makes it a lie.

It does not make it a lie. He tried to do it as soon as he could and
was simply behind schedule. Lies are reserved for the right that lie
about lying. Bush lied and thousands died. Still looking for those
WMD?

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:42:31 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 03:49:40 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:


VBG Your Obamassiah promised to pull the troops out within 6 weeks of
his election. Some 3 yrs ago. So evidently he like you..is a liar.

We are leaving like he promissed. When Bush lied thousands died but
that is fine with a sick winger like you.

He promised to pull out 6 weeks after his election. So he, like you..is
a ****ing liar.

And your own words prove it!

Laugh laugh laugh! What a ****ing retard you are!

Gunner

He did not lie. You are the biggest liar here Gumby. I do like when
you flail and thrash around helplessly wondering why there isn't a
republican in the WH.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:41:34 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 03:42:39 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq.

So Helicopters are WMD?

You are such a ****ing retard Im doubtful you can cross the street
without a keeper.

So providing weapons to terrorists is fine with you hey Gummer? I am
happy to see you finally admit it.

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:11:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:09:07 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:20:04 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
Allen Drake wrote:

The right used the jobless rate as politics to win the house in 2010.

Where are the jobs they said they would create? The Bush created
recession is deeper then anyone knew. They cried about tax cuts for
the top money makers creating jobs. Obama gave it, where are they?

They were cut off by Obamacare, at least until things get much more
settled. What manager is going to hire a person when they have no real
good idea of what that person is going to cost them?


In other words, they lied.

Who lied about what? I lost the thread of the conversation.

The lies always come from the right, who else? They had no intension
of creating jobs. All they care about is taking down Obama at any cost
including the downfall of America.

Another series of Lies from whom now appears to be the worst liar on all
of Usenet.

Is the DNC paying you for your postings?

They certainly arnt getting their moneys worth.

Gunner


SO if they are for creating jobs show me. You can't foo............

Have you always been this stupid?.

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:16:38 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:11:38 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

Excellent point!

And very true. I know a number of shops that simply are holding back
from new hires for this very reason.

Gunner


You don't know **** moron. If any shop can grow they will do it. All
you know is lie after lie. There are plenty of machinist jobs. They
are holding out for lower wages if anything. Look on Craig's list
fool.

It must really suck to be a stupid as you Gumby.

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


The US has been supplying WMD to Iraq and other terrorists for
decades. I already proved that and you agreed and approved.There was
no Al Quida in Iraq before Bush opened the door and invited them in
Man you are a stupid tard

e

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:41:32 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:50:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Allen Drake on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 04:11:27 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

More denial from the mentally twisted Alien Duck

Where are the jobs winger? Where are the jobs?

Good question Duckey Boi..ask YOUR PRESIDENT!

laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh!!!

Gunner

They are in the Jobs Bill that the right refuses to pass. The right
has been obstructionist since the beginning.

I hate to break this to you, but Harry Reid is a Mormon, not a
Republican. If you had checked the newspaper in the graduate lounge,
you might have (I say might, because the MSM is working hard to
protect the Democrats from Obama and vice versa) learned that it was
the Democrats in the Senate who sank Obama's bill. OTOH, there is an
"American Jobs Creation Act" in the House, HR 2911. Interesting
read, but it certainly won't clear the Democrat controlled Senate, or
the Democrat controlled White House.
--
pyotr filipivich

Alien Dreck is such a ****ing retard. Stupid as a bag of road kill.

Ever post he makes shows it like a road flare.

Gunner

Why don't we have a righttard in the white house moron? Simply because
everyone knows they are worse then any Dem. No one can beat Obama and
you know it.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 03:37:14 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:


The campaign promise was within 16 months of election. That would
make it around April of 2009. He is going to be more than 2 years
behind. Under your theory this makes it a lie.

It does not make it a lie. He tried to do it as soon as he could and
was simply behind schedule. Lies are reserved for the right that lie
about lying. Bush lied and thousands died. Still looking for those
WMD?

So a lie isnt really a lie, but only if a Demonrat tells it?

Is that your claim?

ROFLMAO!!!!

Alien Dreck.. you are such a ****ing stupid *******....

Im off to LA to take care of a couple customers, so Ill simply have to
killfile you now and not have to read your spew when I return.

plink


Gunner

Gunner Asch on Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:41:32 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:50:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Allen Drake on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 04:11:27 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

More denial from the mentally twisted Alien Duck

Where are the jobs winger? Where are the jobs?

Good question Duckey Boi..ask YOUR PRESIDENT!

laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh!!!

Gunner

They are in the Jobs Bill that the right refuses to pass. The right
has been obstructionist since the beginning.

I hate to break this to you, but Harry Reid is a Mormon, not a
Republican. If you had checked the newspaper in the graduate lounge,
you might have (I say might, because the MSM is working hard to
protect the Democrats from Obama and vice versa) learned that it was
the Democrats in the Senate who sank Obama's bill. OTOH, there is an
"American Jobs Creation Act" in the House, HR 2911. Interesting
read, but it certainly won't clear the Democrat controlled Senate, or
the Democrat controlled White House.
--
pyotr filipivich

Alien Dreck is such a ****ing retard. Stupid as a bag of road kill.

Ever post he makes shows it like a road flare.

Which explains his blind acceptance of Brother Nehemiah Obama
Scudder's pronouncements.
Sheesh, he should be graduated, forcibly if need be, in order to
free up space in the Graduate Transgendered Wombat Studies Program for
some other unfortunate rube.


tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

"Allen Drake" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:19:18 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:33:30 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:52:46 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:41:23 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 18, 7:39 pm, Allen Drake wrote:
lost millions
of jobs. Obama has created millions.


If Obama has created millions of jobs, explain how the unemployment is
close to 10%. As far as I know, Obama has at best kept a lot of
government jobs going for another year, but those jobs will be lost
eventually. You are welcome to cite studies that prove Obama has
created jobs.


Dan

Actually...unemployment is actually up around 24-27%

The 9.x% number is simply those that are Currently on unemployment
insurance. This does NOT count those that have exhaused their 99 weeks,
or are working less than 20 hours a week

Not true. The "unemployment" number has nothing to do with the number of
people on UI. It's a completely separate set of numbers.

The U3 vrs U6 numbers.

Neither. U3 is the classical "unemployment number". U6 is basically the
number of "underemployed"; those not working 40 hours, who wish to. The
exact
definitions are easily found with a web search.

So the Obamassiah has done exactly dick with the economy..and in
fact...has caused at least 10% higher unemployment..and more than
likely...17% or more unemployment.

So Mr Drake is lying through his teeth. But then...he IS a
leftwinger..so its to be expected.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...age1340457/pg1

THE REAL Unemployment rate is 39.2 Percent; Welcome To 2011!!! Thanks
Obama!!!
Tier 1 they said it was 9.8% unemployed 99 weeks your done.

Tier 2 they said it was 9.8% unemployed 99 weeks your done.

Tier 3 they said it was 9.8% unemployed 99 weeks your done.

Tier 4 they said it was 9.8% unemployed 99 weeks your done.

Tier 5 needed before people lose it. When people lose all they have they
have nothing else to lose. NO ONE IS HELPING THEM!!! Still not working
since Tier 1 ended!!!

SO WHAT THEY ARE NOT TELLING YOU IS THAT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO COLLECTED
ARE STILL NOT WORKING AND UNEMPLOYED!!!!

SO TAKE 9.8% X 4 = 39.2% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE.....ADD THE MILLIONS THAT
WERE LEFT GO AT EACH TIER.....NO WONDER PEOPLE ARE LOSING IT. HOW MANY
PEOPLE DO YOU KNOW OUT OF WORK????? MILLIONS!!!

TIME TO STOP THE LIES!!! NO THE UMEMPLYMENT RATE ISN'T 9.8 IT'S
39.2%!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=7bI_PAiCh0w


This sums it all up.

http://cons-lie.com/2010/01/26/why-republicans-suck/


http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics
survey (National)

Series Id: CES0000000001Seasonally AdjustedSuper Sector: Total
nonfarmIndustry: Total nonfarmNAICS Code: -Data Type: ALL
EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Jan 2000 = 130781

Jan 2001 = 132469

Jan 2002 = 130591

Jan 2003 = 130266

Jan 2004 = 130420

Jan 2005 = 132453

Jan 2006 = 135094

Jan 2007 = 137094

Jan 2008 = 137996

Jan 2009 = 133563

Jan 2010 = 129281

Jan 2011 = 130328

In other words, either the US population has literally exploded over the
past decade or the employment situation isn't nearly as bad as the
"unemployment" numbers would make it appear.

Noteworthy is that the Jan 2011 totals are nearly identical to the numbers
seen in Jan 2000, 2002 and 2003, and that the Sep 2011 figures are actually
favorable as compared to the numbers in most of FY 2000, all of 2002 and
2003, as well as a good portion of FY 2004.

Allen Drake wrote:

They are in the Jobs Bill that the right refuses to pass. The right
has been obstructionist since the beginning.

Hate to break it to you Sparky, but the Republicans tried to vote on the
president's jobs bill but the Senate Majority Leader had his caucus vote to
NOT bring the bill up for a vote. The president's bill has languished in the
Senate since the president sent it over. Since the Democrats have a majority
in the Senate, it's a confusing wonder why they continue to deny a vote or
even allow a markup.

Meanwhile, in the House, the president's bill has ONE sponsor and NO
co-sponsors.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:43:01 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Allen Drake wrote:

They are in the Jobs Bill that the right refuses to pass. The right
has been obstructionist since the beginning.

Hate to break it to you Sparky, but the Republicans tried to vote on the
president's jobs bill but the Senate Majority Leader had his caucus vote to
NOT bring the bill up for a vote. The president's bill has languished in the
Senate since the president sent it over. Since the Democrats have a majority
in the Senate, it's a confusing wonder why they continue to deny a vote or
even allow a markup.

Meanwhile, in the House, the president's bill has ONE sponsor and NO
co-sponsors.

The republicans won't vote on anything that raises revenue. You know
little about law making. The right will bring down the country before
they give Obama anything.

Now tell me sparky, who do you support to run against him?

crickets.

Wahahahahaha........

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:31:45 -0400, Allen Drake wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:43:01 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Allen Drake wrote:

They are in the Jobs Bill that the right refuses to pass. The right
has been obstructionist since the beginning.

Hate to break it to you Sparky, but the Republicans tried to vote on the
president's jobs bill but the Senate Majority Leader had his caucus vote to
NOT bring the bill up for a vote. The president's bill has languished in the
Senate since the president sent it over. Since the Democrats have a majority
in the Senate, it's a confusing wonder why they continue to deny a vote or
even allow a markup.

Meanwhile, in the House, the president's bill has ONE sponsor and NO
co-sponsors.

The republicans won't vote on anything that raises revenue.

Damned right! The Democrats will just spend it, and 40% more.

You know
little about law making. The right will bring down the country before
they give Obama anything.

It's Obama bringing down the country, with debt, moron.

Now tell me sparky, who do you support to run against him?

crickets.

They would win.

Wahahahahaha........

They're coming to take you away...

Allen Drake wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:43:01 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Allen Drake wrote:

They are in the Jobs Bill that the right refuses to pass. The right
has been obstructionist since the beginning.

Hate to break it to you Sparky, but the Republicans tried to vote on
the president's jobs bill but the Senate Majority Leader had his
caucus vote to NOT bring the bill up for a vote. The president's
bill has languished in the Senate since the president sent it over.
Since the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, it's a confusing
wonder why they continue to deny a vote or even allow a markup.

Meanwhile, in the House, the president's bill has ONE sponsor and NO
co-sponsors.

The republicans won't vote on anything that raises revenue. You know
little about law making. The right will bring down the country before
they give Obama anything.

#1 I know "little about lawmaking"? Hmm. In my youth, I was an
Administrative Aide to a U.S. Senator. I KNOW how laws are made.

#2 The Republicans have NEVER said they were opposed to increasing revenue.
Their view is that the best way to raise revenue is by cutting taxes. This
technique has worked every time it's been tried.


Now tell me sparky, who do you support to run against him?


I have a candidate in mind. Here are some of his qualifications. He came to
Texas with only a few million in his pocket and made good. Elected as the
first Republican congressman in Texas since Reconstruction, then re-elected
with no opposition. Director of Central Intelligence, U.S. Ambassador to the
United Nations, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, U.S.
Ambassador to the Republic of China. That should be enough, but he also
served eight years as Vice-President of the United States and four as
President.

So, my support for a candidate to run against Obama runs the gamut, from the
aforementioned individual to a dead cat.

"HeyBub" wrote

I have a candidate in mind. Here are some of his qualifications. He came
to
Texas with only a few million in his pocket and made good. Elected as the
first Republican congressman in Texas since Reconstruction, then
re-elected
with no opposition. Director of Central Intelligence, U.S. Ambassador to
the
United Nations, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, U.S.
Ambassador to the Republic of China. That should be enough, but he also
served eight years as Vice-President of the United States and four as
President.

You mean George the Father? Definitely the more competent and likable among
the bunch. "Only a few million" back then meant real money, which I can't
help but feel could have had something to do with his being the son of
Senator Prescott Bush of Connected Cut.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush

Prescott Bush was born in Columbus, Ohio, to Samuel Prescott Bush and Flora
Sheldon Bush. Samuel Bush was a railroad executive, then a steel company
president, and, during World War I, also a federal government official in
charge of coordination and assistance to major weapons contractors.

As a former AA, you must know that the children of senators, now and in
Ancient Rome, got slightly different treatment from the rest of the
citizenry.

And the beat goes on . . .

--
Bobby G.

On Oct 29, 4:05*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Allen Drake wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:43:01 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Allen Drake wrote:

They are in the Jobs Bill that the right refuses to pass. The right
has been obstructionist since the beginning.

Hate to break it to you Sparky, but the Republicans tried to vote on
the president's jobs bill but the Senate Majority Leader had his
caucus vote to NOT bring the bill up for a vote. The president's
bill has languished in the Senate since the president sent it over.
Since the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, it's a confusing
wonder why they continue to deny a vote or even allow a markup.

Meanwhile, in the House, the president's bill has ONE sponsor and NO
co-sponsors.

The republicans won't vote on anything that raises revenue. You know
little about law making. The right will bring down the country before
they give Obama anything.

#1 I know "little about lawmaking"? Hmm. In my youth, I was an
Administrative Aide to a U.S. Senator. I KNOW how laws are made.

#2 The Republicans have NEVER said they were opposed to increasing revenue.
Their view is that the best way to raise revenue is by cutting taxes. This
technique has worked every time it's been tried.

So when you go into work you will tell your employer that you need a
wage cut bcause it's the only way you can afford to buy that new Aston
Martin you've been eyeing.
that logic says that the unemployed now have more disposable income
than when they were working.

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 08:52:16 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
wrote:

On Oct 29, 4:05*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Allen Drake wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:43:01 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Allen Drake wrote:

They are in the Jobs Bill that the right refuses to pass. The right
has been obstructionist since the beginning.

Hate to break it to you Sparky, but the Republicans tried to vote on
the president's jobs bill but the Senate Majority Leader had his
caucus vote to NOT bring the bill up for a vote. The president's
bill has languished in the Senate since the president sent it over.
Since the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, it's a confusing
wonder why they continue to deny a vote or even allow a markup.

Meanwhile, in the House, the president's bill has ONE sponsor and NO
co-sponsors.

The republicans won't vote on anything that raises revenue. You know
little about law making. The right will bring down the country before
they give Obama anything.

#1 I know "little about lawmaking"? Hmm. In my youth, I was an
Administrative Aide to a U.S. Senator. I KNOW how laws are made.

#2 The Republicans have NEVER said they were opposed to increasing revenue.
Their view is that the best way to raise revenue is by cutting taxes. This
technique has worked every time it's been tried.

So when you go into work you will tell your employer that you need a
wage cut bcause it's the only way you can afford to buy that new Aston
Martin you've been eyeing.
that logic says that the unemployed now have more disposable income
than when they were working.

No, logic says that logic isn't your strong suit.

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 06:05:51 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Allen Drake wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:43:01 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Allen Drake wrote:

They are in the Jobs Bill that the right refuses to pass. The right
has been obstructionist since the beginning.

Hate to break it to you Sparky, but the Republicans tried to vote on
the president's jobs bill but the Senate Majority Leader had his
caucus vote to NOT bring the bill up for a vote. The president's
bill has languished in the Senate since the president sent it over.
Since the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, it's a confusing
wonder why they continue to deny a vote or even allow a markup.

Meanwhile, in the House, the president's bill has ONE sponsor and NO
co-sponsors.

The republicans won't vote on anything that raises revenue. You know
little about law making. The right will bring down the country before
they give Obama anything.

#1 I know "little about lawmaking"? Hmm. In my youth, I was an
Administrative Aide to a U.S. Senator. I KNOW how laws are made.

#2 The Republicans have NEVER said they were opposed to increasing revenue.
Their view is that the best way to raise revenue is by cutting taxes. This
technique has worked every time it's been tried.



Now tell me sparky, who do you support to run against him?


I have a candidate in mind. Here are some of his qualifications. He came to
Texas with only a few million in his pocket and made good. Elected as the
first Republican congressman in Texas since Reconstruction, then re-elected
with no opposition. Director of Central Intelligence, U.S. Ambassador to the
United Nations, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, U.S.
Ambassador to the Republic of China. That should be enough, but he also
served eight years as Vice-President of the United States and four as
President.

So, my support for a candidate to run against Obama runs the gamut, from the
aforementioned individual to a dead cat.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:31:45 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:43:01 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Allen Drake wrote:

They are in the Jobs Bill that the right refuses to pass. The right
has been obstructionist since the beginning.

Hate to break it to you Sparky, but the Republicans tried to vote on the
president's jobs bill but the Senate Majority Leader had his caucus vote
to
NOT bring the bill up for a vote. The president's bill has languished in
the
Senate since the president sent it over. Since the Democrats have a
majority
in the Senate, it's a confusing wonder why they continue to deny a vote
or
even allow a markup.

Meanwhile, in the House, the president's bill has ONE sponsor and NO
co-sponsors.

The republicans won't vote on anything that raises revenue.

Damned right! The Democrats will just spend it, and 40% more.

You know
little about law making. The right will bring down the country before
they give Obama anything.

It's Obama bringing down the country, with debt, moron.


Except, since the 2009 and 2010 budgets were drafted and approved by his
predesessor, Obama's hands have been basically tied.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...al-2010-budget

[

No Surprises for Bush's Lame Duck Fiscal 2010 Budget
June 20, 2008

Conceding to the political reality that the incoming president will want to
tweak the fiscal 2010 budget set to be unveiled next January or February,
President Bush's team has ordered that nothing out of the ordinary be
included in the funding blueprints being drawn up now.

Instead, the budget that will be handed off to Bush's successor to complete
will be a flat-line product to include only already planned increases-or
decreases-in ongoing federal programs. Normally at this stage of the year,
departments would be readying initial budgets filled with new programs for
the West Wing to consider. Instead, the budget writers are on cruise
control, especially since about 80 percent of the federal budget is taken up
by ongoing programs, salaries, and previously approved plans.

]

SEE: the pink and the green lines:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...hic/39255812/1

----- Original Message -----
From: "Just Me"
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking,alt.machines.cnc,alt.home. repair
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 8:52 AM
Subject: 10 cheapest BEST cities to live.... and to run a mfr'g
bidniss??


On Oct 29, 4:05 am, "HeyBub" wrote:


#2 The Republicans have NEVER said they were opposed to increasing
revenue.
Their view is that the best way to raise revenue is by cutting taxes.
This
technique has worked every time it's been tried.

So when you go into work you will tell your employer that you need a
wage cut bcause it's the only way you can afford to buy that new Aston
Martin you've been eyeing.
that logic says that the unemployed now have more disposable income
than when they were working.


Funny how they *always* ignore the fact that in all likelyhood, revenues
would have increased even more so had tax breaks not been implemented.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Allen Drake wrote:

The republicans won't vote on anything that raises revenue.

Damned right! The Democrats will just spend it, and 40% more.

You know little about law making. The right will bring down
the country before they give Obama anything.

It's Obama bringing down the country, with debt, moron.

Now tell me sparky, who do you support to run against him?

They would win.

Come on, the world loves Barack Obama. He was even given the
Nobel Peace Prize. Even the Middle East loves him because he
is not pro-Isreal. The French love him and refer to him as
El President Gaufre. Mexicans support him because of strong
immigration polices and refer to him El Presidente Pollo Mierda.

Just because he's a weaker President than Jimmy Carter is not
a good reason to let down the world. Carter gave away the
Panama Canal. To one up Carter, Obama is giving Mexico southern
California, Arizona, and New Mexico. And his Justice Department
is even arming the Mexican Drug Cartels. What a guy!

A vote for Obama's reelection is a vote for socialism and
redistribution of wealth.

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:06:19 +0000 (UTC), (Dick Adams)
wrote:

wrote:
Allen Drake wrote:

The republicans won't vote on anything that raises revenue.

Damned right! The Democrats will just spend it, and 40% more.

You know little about law making. The right will bring down
the country before they give Obama anything.

It's Obama bringing down the country, with debt, moron.

Now tell me sparky, who do you support to run against him?

They would win.

Come on, the world loves Barack Obama. He was even given the
Nobel Peace Prize. Even the Middle East loves him because he
is not pro-Isreal. The French love him and refer to him as
El President Gaufre. Mexicans support him because of strong
immigration polices and refer to him El Presidente Pollo Mierda.

Fortunately, none of them gets a vote.

Just because he's a weaker President than Jimmy Carter is not
a good reason to let down the world. Carter gave away the
Panama Canal. To one up Carter, Obama is giving Mexico southern
California, Arizona, and New Mexico. And his Justice Department
is even arming the Mexican Drug Cartels. What a guy!

Let them have him. They can have Carter, too. Obama will not only go down as
the worst President of all time, beating even Carter, but he will also go down
as the worst ex-President of all time, beating even Carter.

A vote for Obama's reelection is a vote for socialism and
redistribution of wealth.

No, it is a vote for the destruction of all wealth. The sad part is that
Democrats see this as a good thing.

On Oct 29, 10:21*am, "
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 08:52:16 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
wrote:









On Oct 29, 4:05*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Allen Drake wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:43:01 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Allen Drake wrote:

They are in the Jobs Bill that the right refuses to pass. The right
has been obstructionist since the beginning.

Hate to break it to you Sparky, but the Republicans tried to vote on
the president's jobs bill but the Senate Majority Leader had his
caucus vote to NOT bring the bill up for a vote. The president's
bill has languished in the Senate since the president sent it over.
Since the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, it's a confusing
wonder why they continue to deny a vote or even allow a markup.

Meanwhile, in the House, the president's bill has ONE sponsor and NO
co-sponsors.

The republicans won't vote on anything that raises revenue. You know
little about law making. The right will bring down the country before
they give Obama anything.

#1 I know "little about lawmaking"? Hmm. In my youth, I was an
Administrative Aide to a U.S. Senator. I KNOW how laws are made.

#2 The Republicans have NEVER said they were opposed to increasing revenue.
Their view is that the best way to raise revenue is by cutting taxes. This
technique has worked every time it's been tried.

So when you go into work you will tell your employer that you need a
wage cut bcause it's the only way you can afford to buy that new Aston
Martin you've been eyeing.
that logic says that the unemployed now have more disposable income
than when they were working.

No, logic says that logic isn't your strong suit.

Really,so less is more and black is pink.Explain how less
income(taxes) means more revenue. That approach has never worked no
matter how you cook the books.
I not saying anything about the fact that expenditures are out of
balance, I just questioning your statement that less taxes has always
meant more revenue.

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
wrote:

On Oct 29, 10:21*am, "
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 08:52:16 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
wrote:









On Oct 29, 4:05*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Allen Drake wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:43:01 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Allen Drake wrote:

They are in the Jobs Bill that the right refuses to pass. The right
has been obstructionist since the beginning.

Hate to break it to you Sparky, but the Republicans tried to vote on
the president's jobs bill but the Senate Majority Leader had his
caucus vote to NOT bring the bill up for a vote. The president's
bill has languished in the Senate since the president sent it over.
Since the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, it's a confusing
wonder why they continue to deny a vote or even allow a markup.

Meanwhile, in the House, the president's bill has ONE sponsor and NO
co-sponsors.

The republicans won't vote on anything that raises revenue. You know
little about law making. The right will bring down the country before
they give Obama anything.

#1 I know "little about lawmaking"? Hmm. In my youth, I was an
Administrative Aide to a U.S. Senator. I KNOW how laws are made.

#2 The Republicans have NEVER said they were opposed to increasing revenue.
Their view is that the best way to raise revenue is by cutting taxes. This
technique has worked every time it's been tried.

So when you go into work you will tell your employer that you need a
wage cut bcause it's the only way you can afford to buy that new Aston
Martin you've been eyeing.
that logic says that the unemployed now have more disposable income
than when they were working.

No, logic says that logic isn't your strong suit.

Really,so less is more and black

No, it really is that black and white. You're clueless.

is pink.Explain how less income(taxes) means more revenue.

Leftists never have never understood dynamics. ...or much of anything else,
for that matter.

That approach has never worked no matter how you cook the books.

Clearly false.

I not saying anything about the fact that expenditures are out of
balance, I just questioning your statement that less taxes has always
meant more revenue.

I didn't say that. Though I can understand that literacy is no more your
strong suit than logic. Typical of leftists.

On Oct 29, 9:50*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
wrote:









On Oct 29, 10:21*am, "
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 08:52:16 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
wrote:

On Oct 29, 4:05*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Allen Drake wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:43:01 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Allen Drake wrote:

They are in the Jobs Bill that the right refuses to pass. The right
has been obstructionist since the beginning.

Hate to break it to you Sparky, but the Republicans tried to vote on
the president's jobs bill but the Senate Majority Leader had his
caucus vote to NOT bring the bill up for a vote. The president's
bill has languished in the Senate since the president sent it over.
Since the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, it's a confusing
wonder why they continue to deny a vote or even allow a markup.

Meanwhile, in the House, the president's bill has ONE sponsor and NO
co-sponsors.

The republicans won't vote on anything that raises revenue. You know
little about law making. The right will bring down the country before
they give Obama anything.

#1 I know "little about lawmaking"? Hmm. In my youth, I was an
Administrative Aide to a U.S. Senator. I KNOW how laws are made.

#2 The Republicans have NEVER said they were opposed to increasing revenue.
Their view is that the best way to raise revenue is by cutting taxes. This
technique has worked every time it's been tried.

So when you go into work you will tell your employer that you need a
wage cut bcause it's the only way you can afford to buy that new Aston
Martin you've been eyeing.
that logic says that the unemployed now have more disposable income
than when they were working.

No, logic says that logic isn't your strong suit.

Really,so less is more and black

No, it really is that black and white. *You're clueless.

So you have no idea how lower taxes means more revenue, you are just
parroting GOP/TP propaganda without even questioning it

is pink.Explain how less income(taxes) means more revenue.

Leftists never have never understood dynamics. * ...or much of anything else,
for that matter.

and the rightwingers have all the answers? it just that the evil left
won't let them,
listening to the noise that Cantor and McConnel make sounds very much
like- This is what you do, and and if you don't do it our way we will
shut the country down.

That approach has never worked no matter how you cook the books.

Clearly false.

Show me, I don't think you can

I not saying anything about the fact that expenditures are out of
balance, I just questioning your statement that less taxes has always
meant more revenue.

I didn't say that. *Though I can understand that literacy is no more your
strong suit than logic. *Typical of leftists.

You have memory troubles? go up your post to #2 , line 2 Their view
is that the best way to raise revenue is by cutting taxes

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 07:02:35 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
wrote:

On Oct 29, 9:50*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
wrote:









On Oct 29, 10:21*am, "
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 08:52:16 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
wrote:

On Oct 29, 4:05*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Allen Drake wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:43:01 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Allen Drake wrote:

They are in the Jobs Bill that the right refuses to pass. The right
has been obstructionist since the beginning.

Hate to break it to you Sparky, but the Republicans tried to vote on
the president's jobs bill but the Senate Majority Leader had his
caucus vote to NOT bring the bill up for a vote. The president's
bill has languished in the Senate since the president sent it over.
Since the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, it's a confusing
wonder why they continue to deny a vote or even allow a markup.

Meanwhile, in the House, the president's bill has ONE sponsor and NO
co-sponsors.

The republicans won't vote on anything that raises revenue. You know
little about law making. The right will bring down the country before
they give Obama anything.

#1 I know "little about lawmaking"? Hmm. In my youth, I was an
Administrative Aide to a U.S. Senator. I KNOW how laws are made.

#2 The Republicans have NEVER said they were opposed to increasing revenue.
Their view is that the best way to raise revenue is by cutting taxes. This
technique has worked every time it's been tried.

So when you go into work you will tell your employer that you need a
wage cut bcause it's the only way you can afford to buy that new Aston
Martin you've been eyeing.
that logic says that the unemployed now have more disposable income
than when they were working.

No, logic says that logic isn't your strong suit.

Really,so less is more and black

No, it really is that black and white. *You're clueless.

So you have no idea how lower taxes means more revenue, you are just
parroting GOP/TP propaganda without even questioning it

Like I said, you're illiterate as well as stupid; typical of a leftist.

is pink.Explain how less income(taxes) means more revenue.

Leftists never have never understood dynamics. * ...or much of anything else,
for that matter.

and the rightwingers have all the answers?

Answers, at least.

it just that the evil left
won't let them,
listening to the noise that Cantor and McConnel make sounds very much
like- This is what you do, and and if you don't do it our way we will
shut the country down.

Look in the mirror, stupid.

That approach has never worked no matter how you cook the books.

Clearly false.

Show me, I don't think you can

You're right, no one can show you anything. Your eyes are firmly closed (and
not connected to anything, anyway).

I not saying anything about the fact that expenditures are out of
balance, I just questioning your statement that less taxes has always
meant more revenue.

I didn't say that. *Though I can understand that literacy is no more your
strong suit than logic. *Typical of leftists.

You have memory troubles? go up your post to #2 , line 2 Their view
is that the best way to raise revenue is by cutting taxes

No, that is not what you said. Lower tax *rates* increase revenue. Proven.

On Oct 30, 10:19*am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 07:02:35 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
wrote:









On Oct 29, 9:50 pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
wrote:

On Oct 29, 10:21 am, "
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 08:52:16 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
wrote:

On Oct 29, 4:05 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Allen Drake wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:43:01 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Allen Drake wrote:

They are in the Jobs Bill that the right refuses to pass. The right
has been obstructionist since the beginning.

Hate to break it to you Sparky, but the Republicans tried to vote on
the president's jobs bill but the Senate Majority Leader had his
caucus vote to NOT bring the bill up for a vote. The president's
bill has languished in the Senate since the president sent it over.
Since the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, it's a confusing
wonder why they continue to deny a vote or even allow a markup.

Meanwhile, in the House, the president's bill has ONE sponsor and NO
co-sponsors.

The republicans won't vote on anything that raises revenue. You know
little about law making. The right will bring down the country before
they give Obama anything.

#1 I know "little about lawmaking"? Hmm. In my youth, I was an
Administrative Aide to a U.S. Senator. I KNOW how laws are made.

#2 The Republicans have NEVER said they were opposed to increasing revenue.
Their view is that the best way to raise revenue is by cutting taxes. This
technique has worked every time it's been tried.

So when you go into work you will tell your employer that you need a
wage cut bcause it's the only way you can afford to buy that new Aston
Martin you've been eyeing.
that logic says that the unemployed now have more disposable income
than when they were working.

No, logic says that logic isn't your strong suit.

Really,so less is more and black

No, it really is that black and white. You're clueless.

So you have no idea how lower taxes means more revenue, you are just
parroting GOP/TP propaganda without even questioning it

Like I said, you're illiterate as well as stupid; typical of a leftist.

is pink.Explain how less income(taxes) means more revenue.

Leftists never have never understood dynamics. ...or much of anything else,
for that matter.

and the rightwingers have all the answers?

Answers, at least.

it just that the evil left
won't let them,
listening to the noise that Cantor and McConnel make sounds very much
like- This is what you do, and and if you don't do it our way we will
shut the country down.

Look in the mirror, stupid.
Both cantor and McConnell are on record saying they are willing to
shut down the country if they don't get their way.
McConnell is on record saying his job is to make Obama a one term
president, and will not pass anything that may give the impression of
helping Obama,regardless.

That approach has never worked no matter how you cook the books.

Clearly false.

Show me, I don't think you can

You're right, no one can show you anything. *Your eyes are firmly closed (and
not connected to anything, anyway).

Because you can't, so you just try to turn it back and blame me for
being unwilling to open my eyes,
Educate me.

I not saying anything about the fact that expenditures are out of
balance, I just questioning your statement that less taxes has always
meant more revenue.

I didn't say that. Though I can understand that literacy is no more your
strong suit than logic. Typical of leftists.

You have memory troubles? go up your post to #2 , line 2 Their view
is that the best way to raise revenue is by cutting taxes

No, that is not what you said. *Lower tax *rates* increase revenue. *Proven.

So now you add the word *rates*,semantics, lower rates = lower taxes =
less revenue. I will again cut and paste what you wrote

Their view is that the best way to raise revenue is by cutting taxes. This
technique has worked every time it's been tried.

Educate me.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:04:45 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
wrote:

On Oct 30, 10:19*am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 07:02:35 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
wrote:









On Oct 29, 9:50 pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
wrote:

On Oct 29, 10:21 am, "
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 08:52:16 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
wrote:

On Oct 29, 4:05 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Allen Drake wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:43:01 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Allen Drake wrote:

They are in the Jobs Bill that the right refuses to pass. The right
has been obstructionist since the beginning.

Hate to break it to you Sparky, but the Republicans tried to vote on
the president's jobs bill but the Senate Majority Leader had his
caucus vote to NOT bring the bill up for a vote. The president's
bill has languished in the Senate since the president sent it over.
Since the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, it's a confusing
wonder why they continue to deny a vote or even allow a markup.

Meanwhile, in the House, the president's bill has ONE sponsor and NO
co-sponsors.

The republicans won't vote on anything that raises revenue. You know
little about law making. The right will bring down the country before
they give Obama anything.

#1 I know "little about lawmaking"? Hmm. In my youth, I was an
Administrative Aide to a U.S. Senator. I KNOW how laws are made.

#2 The Republicans have NEVER said they were opposed to increasing revenue.
Their view is that the best way to raise revenue is by cutting taxes. This
technique has worked every time it's been tried.

So when you go into work you will tell your employer that you need a
wage cut bcause it's the only way you can afford to buy that new Aston
Martin you've been eyeing.
that logic says that the unemployed now have more disposable income
than when they were working.

No, logic says that logic isn't your strong suit.

Really,so less is more and black

No, it really is that black and white. You're clueless.

So you have no idea how lower taxes means more revenue, you are just
parroting GOP/TP propaganda without even questioning it

Like I said, you're illiterate as well as stupid; typical of a leftist.

is pink.Explain how less income(taxes) means more revenue.

Leftists never have never understood dynamics. ...or much of anything else,
for that matter.

and the rightwingers have all the answers?

Answers, at least.

it just that the evil left
won't let them,
listening to the noise that Cantor and McConnel make sounds very much
like- This is what you do, and and if you don't do it our way we will
shut the country down.

Look in the mirror, stupid.
Both cantor and McConnell are on record saying they are willing to
shut down the country if they don't get their way.

They *SHOULD* but no one with a brain believes that. You do, however.

McConnell is on record saying his job is to make Obama a one term
president, and will not pass anything that may give the impression of
helping Obama,regardless.

He's only stating the obvious, dummy.

That approach has never worked no matter how you cook the books.

Clearly false.

Show me, I don't think you can

You're right, no one can show you anything. *Your eyes are firmly closed (and
not connected to anything, anyway).

Because you can't, so you just try to turn it back and blame me for
being unwilling to open my eyes,
Educate me.

Obviously not possible. You refuse to see what is clearly in front of you.
One day you'll grow up. Maybe.

I not saying anything about the fact that expenditures are out of
balance, I just questioning your statement that less taxes has always
meant more revenue.

I didn't say that. Though I can understand that literacy is no more your
strong suit than logic. Typical of leftists.

You have memory troubles? go up your post to #2 , line 2 Their view
is that the best way to raise revenue is by cutting taxes

No, that is not what you said. *Lower tax *rates* increase revenue. *Proven.

So now you add the word *rates*,semantics, lower rates = lower taxes =
less revenue. I will again cut and paste what you wrote

Words matter to those who aren't illiterate.

Their view is that the best way to raise revenue is by cutting taxes. This
technique has worked every time it's been tried.

Educate me.

They don't teach history in public school anymore, do they? Try reading some
on your own. Oh, I forgot. You're illiterate.