What the Democrats told us in the 1990s about WMD

Because I used to print and bind my blog entries, it's easier to look back and read them than skimming a computer screen. I was looking at November 2005 (20 years ago) and found a fascinating collection of a blog called, "Who said it game--Iraq Style." It looks like it ended in 2005, or perhaps changed names. It clearly shows our populace what intelligence and information President Bush had from 20-30 years before we got involved there. Direct quotes from Clinton, Reed, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi and others who later blamed Bush and lied about him. Before they were smearing Trump, they were smearing Bush, and some of the same players. Then we called it "Bush Derangement Syndrome" and the hate, anger and evil were the same. It's not about Trump, it's about Democrat ideology.

John Kerry, December 14, 2001, Larry King Live: "Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein."

John Kerry, 2003 CBS Face the Nation: "Well, it wasn't only on that basis. ... Saddam Hussein could not be left to his own devices based on everything we learned about him for seven and a half years while we were inspecting in Iraq. People have forgotten that for seven and a half years, we found weapons of mass destruction. We were destroying weapons of mass destruction. We were, the United States of America, together with Ambassador Butler and the United Nations."

Bill Clinton, Address to nation, Dec. 16, 1998: "Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down."

Bill Clinton, Presidential Letter to Congress on Iraq May 19, 1999: "Many warnings (referring to April report) on weapons of mass destruction--biological and chemical--" "We are convinced that as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he will continue to threaten the well-being of his people, the peace of the region and the security of the world. We will continue to contain these threats, but over the long term the best way to address them is through a new government in Baghdad.

To that end, working with the Congress, we have deepened our engagement with the forces of change in Iraq to help make the opposition a more effective voice for the aspirations of the Iraqi people..."

Al Gore, December 16, 1998. On Larry King Live. "We need national resolve and unity, not weakness and division when we're involved, engaged in an action against someone like Saddam Hussein, who is trying to get weapons of mass destruction and threaten his neighbors... [I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people."

Madeline Albright, February 18,1998: "Iraq is a long way from [the USA], 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."

Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 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."

So, you see, it's the same old gaslighting and finger pointing that we have today, then when things get dark and confusing, they bow out and point fingers.

John Kerry on Joe Biden

"I’ve never before seen the world more in need of someone who on day one can begin the incredibly hard work of putting back together the world Donald Trump has smashed apart."

• Other than blowing up the good old boys' club in Washington, just exactly what has Donald Trump smashed?
• More NATO countries paying their share?
• The embassy moved to Jerusalem?
• A tax cut for the middle class?
• Best employment figures ever for blacks?
• Securing our borders?
• Reducing the numbers and power of ISIS
• Best economy in 50 years?
• Giving black men in prison a fair shake?
• Declaring Merry Christmas?
• Cleaning up the VA? Defunding Planned Parenthood?
• Record number of employed?
• Starting to build the wall that Democrats agreed to?
• Ending aid to Palestinians?
• Cutting 22 regulations for every new rule introduced?
• Challenging the lap dog media?

Wow. That's some smash up.

Although Obama hasn't directly endorsed Biden, his surrogates are rushing to the rescue "loose lips sink ships Joe." Kerry is a surrogate for Obama. All Democrats know that dog whistle.

John Kerry, traitor

 

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/09/14/hey-isnt-anyone-screaming-logan-act-violations-john-kerry/

https://nypost.com/2018/09/14/john-kerry-needs-to-stop-talking-to-iran/

http://matzav.com/john-kerrys-iran-hypocrisy/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/13/john-kerry-slammed-for-shameful-shadow-diplomacy-after-admitting-to-meetings-with-iran.html

Trump supporters have had their lives shredded and torn apart for even meeting with a Ukrainian, and Ukraine is not on Obama’s list of state sponsors of terrorism!

Is Kerry an Iranian spy? Jeffrey Varasano

"John Kerry advised Iran on how to thwart Trump administration policy.

How is Carter Page a Russian Spy and Kerry isn't an Iranian Spy? I want to see Kerry's bank accounts. Let's knock his door in at 4am, throw him in solitary, find out what he knows, if any money changed hands, if he paid all his taxes on it, if he registered as an Agent of a Foreign Power or lied in any way. Who is his lawyer? Raid his office too. Did his secretary's cousin's barber talk to someone with ties to an Iranian oligarch? Let's ruin his life, go thru his last 10 years of taxes and pressure him to flip on Kerry. I want grand juries, multiple courts, secret wire taps and updates hourly for the next 2 years on CNN with guest panels decrying the end of the republic.

Where is it? "Our Democracy" is at stake."

John Kerry’s shadow diplomacy

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/05/politics/john-kerry-iran-deal/index.html 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/john-kerry-deserves-jail-for-secret-iran-diplomacy

https://nypost.com/2018/09/08/john-kerrys-pathetic-ode-to-himself/

Thomas Perez new DNC Chair

In 2004 after John Kerry lost to GW Bush, I watched a panel of grieving Democrats on TV analyze what went wrong and how they could win back the country. Such sad faces! Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (then a representative), a former Methodist minister, helped conceive the idea that they go for the "values" voters--the evangelicals and at least sound like patriotic Americans (he didn't say that, but that's how I heard it). If you go back and look Obama's themes during his first campaign ("hope" for instance which is a very popular Biblical theme), he sounds like a black preacher. Democrats loved it. They "took back" the White House, but Obama lost the country for them at the state and local level with his socialism drift, especially the take over of 1/5 of the economy by the federal government. The DNC newly elected chair, Thomas Perez, isn't even pretending to go for the values voter. Democrats booed God a few years ago and have been peeking under boxes and rugs for more victims, more ISMS and ISTS, so that's the direction they'll go, not for the middle or working class that won them the White House in 2008.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/us/politics/31church.html

 http://collectingmythoughts.blogspot.com/2012/11/yes-rush-democrats-do-discuss-changing.html

An attack on Jews

Let's get real, Mr. Kerry. This is an attack on Jews by the U.N. and the Obama Administration, no matter what you call it. Have you told Turkey or Egypt they can't be Muslim? If the dove of peace miraculously joined the two sides in Israel in hand holding love, there is still the civil war in Syria, hundreds of thousands of refugees, nukes in Iran thanks to Obama, ISIS in Iraq and Afghanistan thanks to Obama, a civil war in Yemen with interference from the Saudis and the U.S., Turkish coups and unrest with Russia, with your fingerprints all over it. So let's pick on our only ally and the only democracy in the middle east. Your boss is doing his best to screw things up for President elect Trump so he'll be so busy putting out fires he can't touch his precious failing insurance scheme.

Joe Biden and Gay Marriage

For the life of me, I don't understand why the "I'm Catholic but" people don't leave the Roman Catholic church and join any one of 35,000 different Protestant groups, probably 20,000 of which don't care at all what you believe. Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry give Catholicism a bad name. Catholics have a central authority, they cover more scripture in a month of daily masses than other churches do in a year, and they have a Pope, some better than others. They have up to the minute documents written by scholars on marriage, abortion, education, serving the poor, government, war, immigration, euthanasia, etc. and a catechism so fat you can use it as a door stop. They have beautiful cathedrals and great music.

Anything goes in Protestant churches, and you can leave because of the sermons or the potlucks and walk down the street and join one more to your liking. You can choose from hard rock or old hymns and liturgy for your worship style. You can be your own pope and decide what the Bible says about marriage and abortion and no one can contradict you because the Holy Spirit told you. 

 

 I just wish someone would ask them to leave and stop calling themselves Catholics. Many churches are looking for them and their wealth and would welcome them. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/joe-bidens-unfaithful-catholic-witness-on-marriage/

But they promised! Iran's testing missles. Huge shock.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/middleeast/iran-missile-test/

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) test-fired several ballistic missiles on Tuesday, state television said, challenging a United Nations resolution and drawing a threat of a diplomatic response from the United States.

 

 

 

 

I agree with John Kerry, the world today is less violent than the 20th century

John Kerry is wrong about a lot, but I think history proves him correct about the 21st century being safer than the 20th, at least so far, although we’re only 15 years into it. It's aggravating that conservative talkers and news shows jumped on that as somehow downplaying what we face now.  Obama has still made a mess of things--we would have been much safer if he hadn't blown up the pull out from Iraq which allowed ISIS to expand, but at least in 2015, the world is safer than in 1970 or 1944.

"Our citizens, our world today is actually, despite ISIL, despite the visible killings that you see and how horrific they are, we are actually living in a period of less daily threat to Americans and to people in the world than normally, less deaths, less violent deaths today than through the last century." John Kerry

Governments killed their own citizens in the 20th century to the tune of about 100 million--and that's not counting the world wars--and there is nothing around today, not ISIS, Taliban or al-qaeda that can match the cruelty and killing of the Communists of USSR and China, the North Koreans who starved millions of their citizens and the National Socialists of Germany or the Turks who killed millions of Armenian Christians under their control.  I think he said it poorly in light of the current news about various threats, but even a few months a go I blogged on this topic, and I think I was using conservative sources.   The jihadists are trying to build up steam for their Caliphate, but so far are no match for the terror and crime of the 20th century.  Because the Democrats are being eaten from the inside by their own radicals and Communists, Kerry probably doesn't dare mention the history behind those words, or that it was the president [Reagan], the pope [John Paul II] and the prime minister [Thatcher] who made the 21st century safer for all of us by bringing down the Soviet Union.

But, the 20th century looked pretty good and progressive until 1914, so maybe we’ll have to wait and see about it being safer today.  So far, I think we are.

When Israel is boycotted, it hurts Palestinian Arabs

[John] Kerry, and many others in the West, understand perfectly well that boycotting Israel reduces job opportunities not only for Jews, but also for Palestinians who work for in Israeli factories, farms and settlements, inside Israel as well as in the West Bank. The Palestinians who work there often receive ten times the remuneration, as well as better working conditions, than they would find among their own people, as has been revealed recently by the workers at companies that have actually been building real bridges of peace such as SodaStream, rather than organizations that have been sanctimoniously blowing up the bridges for peace, as Oxfam has. As usual, the Europeans know what will happen if there are fewer ways for the Palestinians to earn a decent living, as they knew when they left all their colonies. In the West Bank, you lose your job, you sell you house, then you sell your car, then after a year, someone knocks on the door and says they will pay you if you throw rocks The first year you say no; the second year you say yes. The Europeans evidently care more about flagellating Israel than helping Palestinians. They are presumably happy to leave the "savages" to go jobless, hungry and at the mercies of their corrupt dictatorships. What good people the Europeans are!"

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4177/john-kerry-europeans

The Climate Change scam

‘On a domestic scale, one would think that slow economic growth, persistently high unemployment and historic low levels of labor participation, the failure of our public school systems (outside of the richest suburbs), and the imminent implosion of our health insurance and health care systems would be higher policy priorities than the Quixotic and fundamentally egomaniacal quest for humans to change (or stop changing) the climate of our planet.”

Unless, of course, you needed something to hide your policy failures.

http://spectator.org/articles/57355/our-political-climate

Nancy, John and Bashar

Obama, Kerry, Pelosi and H. Clinton all tried to undercut President Bush when he was president by getting cozy with Assad. Bush made no secret about not liking him. He had the Iran/Assad connection figured out and had imposed sanctions. It's nice that they've figured it out, but why make us pay for their mistakes, which included defying and lying about a sitting president. Obama took office on 22 January 2009. Less than a month later, on 21 February 2009, U.S. Senator John Kerry was meeting with the Syrian President in Damascus. Senator Kerry would become Obama’s key envoy in dealing with Assad. You’ve probably all seen the sweet photo of the Assads and Kerrys dining together. Obama had sent a hush-hush delegation in 2008 to meet with Assad even before he was president.

Photos are from her trip when Nancy Pelosi defied the State Department and visited Assad, declaring that “the road to peace is through Damascus.”  John Kerry, acting in concert with the Obama administration, served as Assad’s errand boy in trying to bring Israel to the table for the purpose of returning the Golan Heights to the butcher of Damascus.  The Bush administration had been largely successful in isolating Syria (as Obama sought to do in 2012) until Pelosi and Kerry willfully undermined it.

"President Al-Assad and I had a very positive discussion on the formidable challenges facing this region and we found agreement on a number of ways in which both of us and other countries can contribute significantly to changing the dynamics that exist today," said Sen. John Kerry in March 2010. Then came the Arab Spring, and Obama began supporting the Islamists in various middle eastern countries.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303395904575157713877756160.html

Our government lies with photos

"Secretary of State John Kerry opened his speech Friday by describing the horrors victims of the chemical weapon attack suffered, including twitching, spasms and difficulty breathing. Attempting to drive the point home, Kerry referenced a photograph used by the BBC illustrating a child jumping over hundreds of dead bodies covered in white shrouds. The Secretary of State forgot to mention, however, that this photo was taken during US intervention in Iraq back in 2003." Journal of Turkish Weekly.

Because of all the scandals and lies of this administration, they can't be trusted on the issue of Syria, and may well be using this to cover the messes they've been making the last 5 years.

Really? For Secretary of Defense?

Wouldn’t you just feel so safe?  Do you have any doubts that Obama is attempting to destroy the country?

Kerry in his winter soldier speech said the U.S. shouldn’t be involved in a civil war.  Yet the leader of his party has interfered in about 5 civil wars (aka Arab Spring) to support those Muslim parties with which he agrees. If Obama is right, then LBJ must have been, too.

Only one week after 50% gave him a second term (although that number is being questioned)*

                 

The President is thinking of appointing the veteran who threw away his Vietnam War medals and accused our soldiers of war crimes as our next Secretary of Defense, and the woman that lied to us for weeks saying a "video" caused the Benghazi embassy attacks will probably replace Hillary Clinton as our next Secretary of State.

And here we thought last Wednesday through Friday couldn’t be topped.

*100 precincts in Ohio gave Obama over 99% of the vote—not even Chavez or Saddam Hussein could pull that off.

Maybe it's Kerry's first term?

At some very far left blogs, I've seen grousing (swearing, cursing, gutter language like you wouldn't believe!) that Obama is doing a Bush third term. No indeed, they are not happy with the hope and change--it looks like Bush retreads to them. They know and we know why he's waffling on his assurances to us during the campaign. So Dick Cheney's speech at the Republican Convention in 2004 looks more interesting. Maybe, Obama is really Kerry's first term, minus the experience and the military service, of course? Wanting to be under the authority of the UN, seeking approval from our critics, flip flopping on a variety of issues--yes, except for the lack of experience, it all sounds very familier.

"The President's opponent is an experienced senator. He speaks often of his service in Vietnam, and we honor him for it. But there is also a record of more than three decades since. And on the question of America's role in the world, the differences between Senator Kerry and President Bush are the sharpest, and the stakes for the country are the highest. History has shown that a strong and purposeful America is vital to preserving freedom and keeping us safe — yet time and again Senator Kerry has made the wrong call on national security. Senator Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed "only at the directive of the United Nations." During the 1980s, Senator Kerry opposed Ronald Reagan's major defense initiatives that brought victory in the Cold War. In 1991, when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait and stood poised to dominate the Persian Gulf, Senator Kerry voted against Operation Desert Storm.

Even in this post-9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a "more sensitive war on terror," as though Al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side. He declared at the Democratic Convention that he will forcefully defend America — after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked, and faced with an enemy who seeks the deadliest of weapons to use against us, we cannot wait for the next attack. We must do everything we can to prevent it — and that includes the use of military force.

Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve — as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics. In fact, in the global war on terror, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush has brought many allies to our side. But as the President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a coalition of many, and submitting to the objections of a few. George W. Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people.

Senator Kerry also takes a different view when it comes to supporting our military. Although he voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, he then decided he was opposed to the war, and voted against funding for our men and women in the field. He voted against body armor, ammunition, fuel, spare parts, armored vehicles, extra pay for hardship duty, and support for military families. Senator Kerry is campaigning for the position of commander in chief. Yet he does not seem to understand the first obligation of a commander in chief — and that is to support American troops in combat.

In his years in Washington, John Kerry has been one of a hundred votes in the United States Senate — and very fortunately on matters of national security, his views rarely prevailed. But the presidency is an entirely different proposition. A senator can be wrong for 20 years, without consequence to the nation. But a president — a president — always casts the deciding vote. And in this time of challenge, America needs — and America has — a president we can count on to get it right.

On Iraq, Senator Kerry has disagreed with many of his fellow Democrats. But Senator Kerry's liveliest disagreement is with himself. His back-and- forth reflects a habit of indecision, and sends a message of confusion. And it is all part of a pattern. He has, in the last several years, been for the No Child Left Behind Act — and against it. He has spoken in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement — and against it. He is for the Patriot Act — and against it. Senator Kerry says he sees two Americas. It makes the whole thing mutual — America sees two John Kerrys.

2004 Republican National Convention on Wednesday, Sept. 1, 2004

John Kerry unhinged

Watched him on Fox last night. A scary dude. So glad he was defeated in Ohio in 2004 which kept him out of the White House.

It's very clear the Democrats have dropped the bailout ball--going all the way back to President Carter in the 1970s when this social engineering of the poor began with the "American dream" of home ownership and expanded under Clinton in 1993. Did the rich get richer? You bet. Oh, and the agencies, lobbyists, and foundations that mushroomed to help the poor. How many jobs did they produce for recent idealist college grads? The rich usually benefit in these social engineering programs, particularly the people putting them in place with the regulations and loop-holes, blocking reform. The Chris Dodd and Barney Frank dog and pony show--wonder how much richer these guys were in 2007 compared to 2004? Well, guys, it's probably gone now, at least on paper--but the people in Congress don't seem to suffer that much, do they? Fewer rich people for Obama to tax. And you know what that means, don't you? The tax man cometh for you.

I don't always recommend a Wiki, but I'm in a hurry to get to my volunteer job today--if you're a Democrat or Marxist, there will be plenty of sources pointing the other way, but you'll have to find them on your own:

"In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[7] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.[4][6]

The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans, some of which were "risky mortgages." " Community Reinvestment Act

3270 Responses to Kerry and Rangel insults

James Taranto's column (he's on vacation) is carrying responses to John Kerry and Charlie Rangel who both recently insulted the fine men and women in uniform, while hiding behind the cloak of being veterans themselves. I thought this one (pt. 5 of a series) by Stephen deVore was pretty good:

"Because I'm so stoopid, per Jon Carry, I'm probably writing to the wrong Web address to add the tale of my own idiocy to the ranks.

Just like Rangell suggested, I was one of those Midwestern kids too poor to go to college on my parents' dime, so I thought I had to go into the military. And just like Jon Carry said, I ended up in Iraq, or near enough (the Persian Gulf, twice, Kuwait, and Somalia for good measure). I only had a 1460 SAT, which put me in that mental category of "bright enough" to go to Annapolis, but obviously not up to Carry's or Rangell's standards.

After I drove ships and flew planes for the Navy, I got out and went to law school at Columbia (I know, Sen. Carry, it's not Yale, but what do you expect from a stoopid military guy?). To make my wife happy I went over to the Sorbonne and got a French law degree too, although there is no doubt that Jean le Carré must certainly speak la belle langue better than I, as he is well-educated and looks the part too. All I can do is practice law in French, which is about all that us mental category III guys who had to go into the service are able to do.

Today, I work down at one of those big Wall Street law firms, which means that I am heartless to the plight of the poor, being too rich (as contrasted with that man of the people from Massachussetts--hey, he married well!). More proof of both arrogance and sorry-sod sailor's ignorance: I don't know how to windsurf."

3030 It's not an apology

if you say, "I'm sorry you were offended." Not to your wife, or best friend, or the Army and Marines. Someone let Kerry know so he can try it again. He could choose:

• "I regret what I said. It was rude and untrue."
  
• "I'm so sorry I denigrated our service men and women serving in Iraq. They are the smartest and best we've ever had. Above the national average."
  
• "I'm such a klutz--I tried to insult the President, but insulted you guys instead, and I am sorry. Then I kept making it worse. What a doofus."
  
• "If I'd been a better student myself, maybe I wouldn't keep making these dumb, haughty mistakes. Forgive me?"

John F. Kerry
How to apologize