Who Gave this Speach???

[Seahawks]

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade…

 

And the very difficult question for all of us is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment if not an obsession with weapons of mass destruction. And I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part this decision.

 

And it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we not only had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein and a willingness on his part to disarm and account for his chemical and biological storehouses, but that if we had a much broader alliance and coalition.

 

But we are in a very difficult position right now…

 

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein. I just do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for the United States leadership.

 

 

I am willing to take a very difficult step for me to say we have to disarm this man

 

[Seahawks]

Hillary Clinton - how soon the fanatic Dems forget

[catbirdseat]

We are in a more difficult situation now than we were when the war started. Wouldn't you agree?

[Seahawks]

more from her..

 

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful.

[sirwoofalot]

Really? Was it HC? I would have guessed Teddy K. It does sound like a Dem.

 

[Dechristo]

There has long been speculation of Hillary's involvement with speach.

[Seahawks]

The Dems are two faced. Only out for the political vote.

[sirwoofalot]

Give it a rest, they are all (Dems and Reps)a pack of wolfs looking for their own personal power at the cost of their very own soles.

 

[sirwoofalot]

Give it a rest, they are all (Dems and Reps)a pack of wolfs looking for their own personal power at the cost of their very own soles.

 

[sirwoofalot]

Give it a rest, they are all (Dems and Reps)a pack of wolfs looking for their own personal power at the cost of their very own soles.

 

[Dechristo]

unlike the Repubs, eh?

[sirwoofalot]

oops, why did it do that and submit three times?

 

[Seahawks]

unlike the Repubs, eh?

 

No I will agree with you on that. They are the same.

[ashw_justin]

Ah what the hell. Cross-post. Hypocrisy even on the same day.

 

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

 

"In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

...

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

 

Um, what was your vote again?

[ZimZam]

So they have worn out the soles of their souls?

[Dechristo]

filet of soul