Obama Has Failed

[telcoman]

These are the parts that are scaring people, I think:

combined with this:

and including this:

I might not term it a "death panel", but it certainly sounds like people may find themselves in a position where medically necessary intervention may be decided/limited/withheld(?) by a "coalition of stakeholders" rather than family members or the patient themselves.

Z

This language is written for the hillbillies too dumb to have a living will and power of attorney to a trusted family member to make decisions for them should they become incapacitated and unable to make decisions for themselves.

[themadscientist]

Your feeling of superiority is ill-conceived. Awarding the government that sort of control over a citizen's life decisions IS NOT preferred.

[telcoman]

Your feeling of superiority is ill-conceived. Awarding the government that sort of control over a citizen's life decisions IS NOT preferred.

What I wrote was a bit of sarcasm.

The clause is in the bill for those that choose to use it. No one is forcing anyone to make use of it.If you die without a will the state will then make the decisions that perhaps other family members may not agree with. An executor appointed by a state court is going to cost those left behind plenty.Many young people today have no idea what is involved in dealing with death of a family member until it is too late to seek legal advise.That sir was my point.

Telcoman

[themadscientist]

No, you think that way. I've seen enough of your textual regurgitations to know your true feelings. I'm not sure which I find more ironic and pompous; the hard left self-actualized elitist attitude or the hard right supposed moral superiority.

It was written to insinuate government control of yet one more aspect of our lives, nothing more deep than that.

[themadscientist]

Sure as in the spending for the Viet Nam war.

They sure seemed keen to go to war. Only two dems dissented on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

http://www.findingdulcinea.com....html

The House passed Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in only 40 minutes, with no dissenting voters. The Senate needed nine hours, but there were only two opposing votes, from Democrats Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska. They both contended that it was unconstitutional because it represented a “predated declaration of war power.”

[srellim234]

smockers- couple of things wrong from your argument:

Your statement says incentive to BECOME uninsured. we're talking about a system theat will provide insurance and/or treatment to those who are not getting care now. People who have insurance are highly unlikely to abandon their care, especially if they are satisfied with what they have.

Your car analogy doesn't work, either. You assume that owning a car is a right. It isn't. Those who don't have cars in most major population centers of this country are provided with a basic way to get around (public buses, commuter trains, etc.) for a nominal fee. What we're talking about here is providing basic coverage to the people who don't/can't have healthcare now.You assume that we're providing a "Ferrari" through the gov't plan. Isn't going to happen. We're talking providing mass transit, not individual cars, for those who are walking now, and charging a nominal fee for the service. What I'd like to see in this plan, though, is for someway for people who choose not to take part in either a private or a go'vt run program to continue to "walk" if they so choose. We shouldn't force people on that bus. Only provide it if they choose to use it.

[audtatious]

Sure as in the spending for the Viet Nam war.

That is why the left was so opposed to Bush for falsely claiming WMD were in Iraq

http://www.democratictalkradio....htmlhttp://www.defenselink.mil/new...15918http://www.washingtonpost.com/....htmlhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

[telcoman]

What I'd like to see in this plan, though, is for someway for people who choose not to take part in either a private or a go'vt run program to continue to "walk" if they so choose. We shouldn't force people on that bus. Only provide it if they choose to use it.

But that is what is wrong with the healthcare system now. The 80% or so who do have healthcare coverage from an employer are subsidizing the 47 million or so who have no coverage. Some of them are scared that they may get screwed by this bill.Seniors on medicare are scared they are going to lose some of their coverage. So we have a bunch of people scared s#itless that they are going to be short changed by this bill.So perhaps the answer is to gradually phase in the public option and mandate that everyone have some sort of health coverage just like automobile insurance is mandated in most states.No one is forced but if you choose not to take the health insurance you will pay a tax penalty so if you wrap your G around a tree & must be taken to an emergency room the extra tax will be used to pay the hospital & doctors for your stupidity in not having health coverage.

Telcoman

[telcoman]

http://www.democratictalkradio....htmlhttp://www.defenselink.mil/new...15918http://www.washingtonpost.com/....htmlhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

Even if the links above are all true, the Congress and the American people were still not told the complete truth by the Bush administration.Then his proclamation of Mission Accomplished was a huge lie.Not being prepared to provide security for a new Iraq government was a huge and costly screwup.

His runup of huge debt after giving unneeded tax cuts to the wealthest Americans was another huge mistake. As was getting the federal government involved with Terry Schaivo.

What were they thinking about the huge healthcare problem?

They had eight years.

So between failing on 911, failing on the Irag war, failing on hurricane Katrina, and the GOP spreading lies about Obama during the campaign that he hangs out with terrorists, and that an attractive hillbilly from Alaska would be an asset to the American people as a VP WTF!The voters made a decision and elected Obama as I and a few others here correctly predicted.Now the same wack jobs and wingnuts that were backing an unqualified hillbilly are spreading lies again about Obama's attempt to reform the healthcare problem. That was one reason why he was elected. Duh!

Rush the ahole wants him to fail!

Obama has already stated that he does not care if he is not reelected. He is going to get this bill passed and once he does he will be reelected. In my opinion!

We've been thru this before with Social Security, medicare, voting rights act, etc.

In the end like it or not there is going to be healthcare reform with a public option because if the present healthcare companies do not put limitations on their huge overpaid executive salaries they will eventually be driven out of business. And I say good riddance!Both Social Security and Medicare have proven over time that they do work.Perfect no but corrections to problems in both can be fixed. Bringing more people in to medicare if they choose to do so and choose to forgo independant public healthcare companies that are presently allowed to pick and choose who they want to cover should be an option to those without coverage.

Telcoman

[audtatious]

Go work on your tin foil hat and simply stop posting in the Politics forum. You have an excuse for everything, don't believe anything unless it's from the sites you spew your hate and drivel on, and you constantly refuse to respond to questions we pose to you here which show your position to be wrong.

[smockers83]

smockers- couple of things wrong from your argument:

Your statement says incentive to BECOME uninsured. we're talking about a system theat will provide insurance and/or treatment to those who are not getting care now. People who have insurance are highly unlikely to abandon their care, especially if they are satisfied with what they have.

Allow me to quote, again, what I am commenting on. Perhaps then you will see my point here.

I don't understand why we can't just build government run clinics for all the uninsured people to go to, and leave all the regular hospitals to the people with private insurance...I mean, we were ready to dump nearly a trillion dollars on the reform, why not throw up some new buildings with gov doctors and such?

Focus on the "government run clinics for all the uninsured people to go to". If they're uninsured, how can they be insured? This statement implies free healthcare provided by the government and hence the incentive to become uninsured. End of story.

Your car analogy doesn't work, either. You assume that owning a car is a right.

To play devil's advocate, you assume that healthcare is a right. Where does it say in the Constitution that the People have the right to healthcare?

Those who don't have cars in most major population centers of this country are provided with a basic way to get around (public buses, commuter trains, etc.) for a nominal fee. What we're talking about here is providing basic coverage to the people who don't/can't have healthcare now.

Let me ask you this. What is basic coverage and how much is a nominal fee? A plantar wart removed?

You assume that we're providing a "Ferrari" through the gov't plan. Isn't going to happen.

The government plan would insure people to allow them to get the Ferrari treatments they need. It allows them the same opportunity as those with private insurance. What would be the purpose if it didn't?

You mentioned that people who are already insured aren't going to abandon their coverage. So what is the purpose of all this needed reform?

[telcoman]

Go work on your tin foil hat and simply stop posting in the Politics forum. You have an excuse for everything, don't believe anything unless it's from the sites you spew your hate and drivel on, and you constantly refuse to respond to questions we pose to you here which show your position to be wrong.

Why should anyone believe you?

Others who previously proved you wrong were banned.

Some still remember your rantings duringthe campaign backing Bush, McCain and the hillbilly.What did you prove?

I hope you are sitting down because YOU are going to be disappointed again soon!

The healthcare reform bill will be passed later this year. The republicans no longer count for anything. The majority of Americans are sick of them and will vote more of them out of office in the next elections.And if you are earning over $250k you will be paying additional taxes to help pay for the uninsured. I'm tired of paying for the uninsured that can't afford healthcare.

You need to lighten up

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908200012

Telcoman


Modified by telcoman at 3:30 PM 8/22/2009

[szh]

This language is written for the hillbillies too dumb to have a living will and power of attorney to a trusted family member to make decisions for them should they become incapacitated and unable to make decisions for themselves.

The problem is that it can be also used for people who have done the same too.

And for the drug addicts who find it too easy to continue to buy and use them.

And for the mentally ill.

It is too powerful a thing to leave in the hands of the government.

Z

[telcoman]

The problem is that it can be also used for people who have done the same too.

And for the drug addicts who find it too easy to continue to buy and use them.

And for the mentally ill.

It is too powerful a thing to leave in the hands of the government.

Z

Well if it doesn't work it can be changed in the future.

The problem needs to be addressed now.

Any discovered defects can be corrected later on. It is not even going to take effect for a few years.

[S13_love]

To play devil's advocate, you assume that healthcare is a right. Where does it say in the Constitution that the People have the right to healthcare?

It doesn't, but...

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Im not gonna lie...I may have perceived that part wrong, but I thought I might as well throw that in here in this post.

-or-

From the Declaration of Independence...

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

I've been paying a lot of attention to this whole health care issue lately.

Here's my .02 cents

Healthcare reform? Obama is clearly making a textbook example of how not to do this. We spend so much money on defense and among other things... we simply cannot afford to have a universal plan or even attempt to push for one anytime soon. This whole thing Obama is trying to push for was clearly poorly put together.

But like someone posted here earlier I believe, I would support an option of a gov. provided healthcare for the uninsured. Why? Because private insurance has failed for over 50 million Americans, thats just unacceptable.

There was another thread in which (correct me if im wrong) Charlieo stated that we need insurance reform if anything. This is also very true. Im just gonna leave at that.

Let people who have their insurance keep it, it is working for my family, and for a whole plethora of other people...

As for those who can't afford it, we simply just can't deny (let alone ignore) them any treatment if needed.

Even if the links above are all true, the Congress and the American people were still not told the complete truth by the Bush administration.

That and how many other administrations?

Lol, sorry, the Bush administraion isn't the only one.

So between failing on 911, failing on the Irag war, failing on hurricane Katrina, and the GOP spreading lies about Obama during the campaign that he hangs out with terrorists, and that an attractive hillbilly from Alaska would be an asset to the American people as a VP WTF!

We did not fail on 9/11, for the Iraq war...im not commenting on that, Hurricane Katrina...that f*** up all goes to FEMA.

But that whole picking a milf ( ) for a vp...wow, talk about desperation...that's at least what I saw it as. On a side note, what the hell happened to Biden? I haven't heard one thing about him after the election ended.

/rant

[audtatious]

Hey dips***, I haven't banned anyone from politics, look elsewhere.

Approval ratings are down and will continue. There's nothing you can do about it. The Obama Administration, and his handlers (Pelosi and Reid) have consistently been non-performers. The Dem controlled Congress has been a failure since they came to power in 2006 and the promises from Obama have turned out to be a turd as it's coming true that he was simply telling people like you what you wanted to hear. Any health care plan that is pushed through will be a shell of what they hoped to get passed in their socialistic movement. Your Administration is full of tax cheats, liars and left-wing extremist lobbyists. The "stupid people" are seeing through all the MSM BS that has been populating the airwaves and CHANGE will begin in 2010. There is only so much BS that can be fed to the average American citizen before they start seeing it for what it is.

HOPE and CHANGE? You got to be s***ting me. Right now the majority of Americans simply HOPE the CHANGE won't continue to blow up our economy.

[S13_love]

HOPE and CHANGE? You got to be s***ting me. Right now the majority of Americans simply HOPE the CHANGE won't continue to blow up our economy.

Exactly because...

The republicans no longer count for anything. The majority of Americans are sick of them and will vote more of them out of office in the next elections.

You're wrong on this part btw.

Americans are already sick w/ the bulls*** the democrats have spewed out for these past couple of months.

More republicans are going to be voted in...not democrats...and I truly hope that this happens.

[telcoman]

It doesn't, but...

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Im not gonna lie...I may have perceived that part wrong, but I thought I might as well throw that in here in this post.

-or-

From the Declaration of Independence...

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

I've been paying a lot of attention to this whole health care issue lately.

Here's my .02 cents

Healthcare reform? Obama is clearly making a textbook example of how not to do this. We spend so much money on defense and among other things... we simply cannot afford to have a universal plan or even attempt to push for one anytime soon. This whole thing Obama is trying to push for was clearly poorly put together.

But like someone posted here earlier I believe, I would support an option of a gov. provided healthcare for the uninsured. Why? Because private insurance has failed for over 50 million Americans, thats just unacceptable.

There was another thread in which (correct me if im wrong) Charlieo stated that we need insurance reform if anything. This is also very true. Im just gonna leave at that.

Let people who have their insurance keep it, it is working for my family, and for a whole plethora of other people...

As for those who can't afford it, we simply just can't deny (let alone ignore) them any treatment if needed.

That and how many other administrations?

Lol, sorry, the Bush administraion isn't the only one.

We did not fail on 9/11, for the Iraq war...im not commenting on that, Hurricane Katrina...that f*** up all goes to FEMA.

But that whole picking a milf ( ) for a vp...wow, talk about desperation...that's at least what I saw it as. On a side note, what the hell happened to Biden? I haven't heard one thing about him after the election ended.

/rant

I don't think the constitution has any bearing on the healthcare debate

Government Social Security works, Medicare works, the VA and military healthcare system works. Are they all perfect no!But there is nothing wrong with offering a government run public option to those that either have no healthcare coverage now or are unhappy with their employer based system.There are very powerful individuals that have huge monetary interests in keeping the status quo so they can continue to earn millions of dollars while denying care to those that need it the most. They are trying to scare people in opposing any changes.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200908210048Many bankruptcies being filed in the courts are the result of job loss and loss of healthcare coverage.It is a very serious problem that various administrations going back to Truman have failed to address. 2009 is the year it is finally going to happen
Modified by telcoman at 4:18 PM 8/22/2009

[audtatious]

I don't think the constitution has any bearing on the healthcare debate

You got one right.....There is no clause in the Constitution which says health care is a right.

Government Social Security works, Medicare works, the VA and military healthcare system works. Are they all perfect no!

Social Security? Payouts for Social Security will exactly match receipts as early as 2010. For the next decade, the government was previously forecasting a $703 billion surplus, but that now has turned into a $620 billion deficit that the government will have to finance with debt.

Medicare?Medicare may be bankrupt as early as 2017http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

VA?There are problems throughout the system with over 600k backlogged cases (ang growing) and lapses in coverage.

What do these have in common? They are ALL run by the Gov. UH going to solve those problems? Right, dream on. As usual, Fail Fail Fail

[smockers83]

I don't do this too often Howie, but we need to shake you up a little.

Viet Nam.

This is what happens when a country drafts many of its youngsters still in school, they make up their own spellings. Vietnam, it isn't two words.

The 80% or so who do have healthcare coverage from an employer are subsidizing the 47 million or so who have no coverage. Some of them are scared that they may get screwed by this bill.Seniors on medicare are scared they are going to lose some of their coverage. So we have a bunch of people scared s#itless that they are going to be short changed by this bill.

So if a very high super majority of the country are going to suffer because of this healthcare reform, why the hell should we even be considering it?

Others who previously proved you wrong were banned.

To be honest, those that tried to prove me wrong and ultimately failed miserably were banned.

Some still remember your rantings duringthe campaign backing Bush, McCain and the hillbilly.What did you prove?

The same thing my father set out to prove by saying he was going to vote for Obama, even though he is quite conservative. He wanted to prove and show who Obama and the Democrats really are and he also wanted to see them fail and be voted back out of office to get the country back on its feet. He was willing to go through four years to feel like he proved something to all of those who believed in Obama.

The republicans no longer count for anything. The majority of Americans are sick of them and will vote more of them out of office in the next elections.

The Republicans no longer count for anything and Americans are sick of them and will vote more of them out of office next term? Ha. Quite frankly, it is very, very much the opposite. Heard of the town hall meetings the Democrats have been having lately?

Where ever your hillbilly, will, and lawyer comment is, I take that comment with a lot of resentment. I have neither of those and nor am I hillbilly. I really don't need one, statistically speaking, because my chances of death are slim to none.

I don't think the constitution has any bearing on the healthcare debate

Government Social Security works, Medicare works, the VA and military healthcare system works. Are they all perfect no!

Yes and no to the first, and absolutely not to the second.

The first is yes because there's nothing in it talking about healthcare. It's also no because the Constitution sets out in writing what the government can and cannot do.

The second is absolutely not because all three are in trouble. They work if your definition of working is they give money out. Other than that, they don't work, at all. Particularly Medicare. Social Security is a much easier fix.

[smockers83]

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Im not gonna lie...I may have perceived that part wrong, but I thought I might as well throw that in here in this post.

Context, context, context. They need to start teaching classes in high school and college on context because this country is losing its ability to take things into context, and it leads to unnecessary disturbances in the peace.

You did perceive it wrong because you can't just quote a single phrase, you have to take the whole thing into context. In the context of the whole statement, you have "without due process of law". This is setting up the judicial system and trials. Has nothing to do with healthcare.

[AZhitman]

Howie -

Didn't we already establish, based on your own admission, that you have NO IDEA what you're talking about?

Quit ranting about unrelated topics, because you're starting to piss me off with your pompous idiocy. This thread is about BO's healthcare reform proposal.

You STILL have yet to respond to ANY direct questions. You STILL haven't educated yourself on the topic, and you STILL use offensive language to describe anyone who doesn't buy your nonsense.

Your use of the term "hillbilly" cracks me up. At least those you disdain are educated on the topic. How does it feel to be less informed than a hillbilly?

I am SO glad that the rest of the participants in this thread (many of whom are half or even a third your age) have a better grasp of reason, independent thinking, and rational thought than you do.

No more posting irrelevant nonsense. Post in the proper thread or go away.

[AZhitman]

Sorry, I had to re-post this... just because it deserves a colossal facepalm:

Ah, blind faith.

Interesting how you can believe in Obama, but not believe in a Creator.

The creator is President Obama. He has deferred te writing of the bill to committees in both houses.I would have thought your 11 year old smart daughter would have explained that to you.

My daughter just read this post, said, "Creator with a capital C, dummy" and rolled her eyes.

[szh]

Well if it doesn't work it can be changed in the future.

Hmmm ... no. I'd rather do it correctly from the start. No need to put faulty laws into place - that can get used incorrectly in the interim.

The problem needs to be addressed now.

No need to put a governmental policy in place for this kind of decision-making to be put in the hands of committees.

Any discovered defects can be corrected later on. It is not even going to take effect for a few years.

Huhn? Sorry, I'd rather get it right as best as we all can do so. No need to follow faulty laws ...

Z

[AZhitman]

Well if it doesn't work it can be changed in the future.

The problem needs to be addressed now.

This is the kind of retarded and short-sighted halfassed libby thinking that got us the Cash For Clunkers program, which has been a dismal failure.

Interesting that this wasn't a crisis in the Clinton Administration. Hmmmmm?

[AZhitman]

Just to rub salt in the wounds:

Latest polling indicates that 80% (yes, EIGHTY PERCENT) of Americans are "satisfied" with their current healthcare coverage.

Pandering to a subset of the population to the detriment of the majority is a recipe for failure.

The list goes on and on.

[srellim234]

AZ- While the numbers look good, the Rasmussen poll you're citing limited itself to those who currently have coverage. It did not take a random sample of all Americans.

A lot of this debate should be about taking care of those who are unable to at this time. The poll only included those who can and are.

http://centristatheart.blogspo....html

I have to wonder, too, how much of the improvement in the numbers over the last six months or so is due to the healthcare services responding in a favorable way to their customers in an attempt to sway the healthcare reform debate in their favor. Their way of lobbying the people. Once the debate blows over, will they return to the previously poorly-rated ways?
Modified by srellim234 at 9:24 AM 8/25/2009

[audtatious]

The drug/health lobbyists are all courting Obama right now so who knows...

[BallzDeep1.9L]

That is why the left was so opposed to Bush for falsely claiming WMD were in Iraq and getting us into a useless war.

i know it is off topic but telecoman has yet opened his mouth with ignorance. Must be that he is still giddy over Pres. Obama jacking up his 401k.

So you see the dems and republicans BOTH claimed they were there, and the dems a lot earlier then Bush was..so they were both wrong.

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

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

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

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

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. 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 invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

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

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Ted "Swimmer" 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 "Hypocrite" 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 is calculating 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

http://www.mindconnection.com/...n.htm

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

[audtatious]

I simply refuse to go down the same path with 'ole Howie. He will only believe the history as written by Dailykos, NYTimes and HuffPost. Quoting Dems, word for word, is simply misrepresenting what they "really" said.