A preview of what lies inside this diary:
"The threat posed by Saddam Hussein is analogous to the threat posed by a drunk driver" - Rick Santorum
"If this President attempts to take this Nation to war based on this authority for any reason - any reason - other than weapons of mass destruction, I will be on this floor every day taking issue with this President attempting to stop the war" - Joe Biden
"Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction." - Kit Bond
"Rebuilding Iraq will be much easier than building Afghanistan." - Dana Rohrabacher
I'll also have a pre-emptive FAQ at the end.
Yes, a lot of these quotes are repetitive, both in content, and in being WRONG.
Also, do NOT partake in any drinking games off of quotes on this list, it's for your own good.
So all the content is under the fold..
Senators Running for Re-Election in 2006 (and one who wants to be a Senator):
"I agree with the President, and the CIA, and the Department of Defense, and the State Department, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime are a credible threat to the United States and our interests and our allies around the world. Because that threat is present and real, I believe the dangers will become substantially greater with continued inaction by the international community, or the United States acting in concert with allies."
- Sen. George Allen (R-VA), 10/10/02
"September 11 also taught us another lesson--how fragile our freedoms are, especially when you inject fear. Also, we found out how fragile our economy was. [Saddam Hussein] clearly has growing and increasingly sophisticated biological and chemical weapons capabilities, which strikes fear into the heart of every citizen on this planet. He has used them in the past and has the intent to use them again. He also actively continues his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), 10/08/02
"We know Saddam Hussein's regime is in possession of chemical and biological weapons. And we know they are working, as frantically as they can, to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), 10/10/02
"The threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime is growing with each passing day. He has, at this moment, chemical and biological weapons he could use against us or share with terrorist networks that threaten us. He is pursuing nuclear weapons."
- Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), 10/10/02
"We should ask ourselves, would Paris or Moscow or Beijing be in Saddam Hussein's crosshairs or would it be New York or Washington?"
- Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-MN) on Saddam's "weapons", 10/10/02
"While there is much about Iraq's capabilities we do not know, there are also some things we do know. No one, for example, can doubt the extent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The only question is when and how he will use them and how long it will be before he can add nuclear weapons to his existing chemical and biological capabilities."
- Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), 10/07/02
"In plain terms, the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is analogous to the threat posed by a drunk driver. The drunk driver is a threat to all on and in close proximity to the road. Behind the wheel of a rolling weapon, it is only a matter of time before the drunk driver crashes into another car, kills an innocent bystander or causes immense damage to someone's personal property. Saddam is this drunk driver careening along the road, a threat to all those innocents who have the misfortune to cross his path. It is time to get Saddam off the road before he can kill or injure innocents who cross his path."
- Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), 10/10/02
"As to the first question, I have come to the conclusion - based on the facts - that Saddam Hussein's continued, aggressive production of weapons of mass destruction presents a real and immediate global mess, particularly in light of the absence of any U.N.-mandated inspectors over the last 4 years."
- Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), 10/09/02
"Today, there is no reason to believe Hussein has ever looked back. As reported in the U.S. intelligence
community document made public on October 4, 2002, he has been seeking to revamp and accelerate his nuclear weapons program. The report concluded that if left unchecked, Iraq would ``probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade,'' and that if Hussein could acquire weapons-grade fissile material from abroad ``it could make a nuclear weapon within a year.'' This information is echoed in the September 24, 2002, intelligence dossier released by British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- a critical voice and ally in our war on terrorism. That dossier outlines Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs past and present. It finds Hussein, following the departure of U.N. inspectors in 1998, is aggressively pursuing development of a nuclear capability, and is undeniably seeking items needed to enrich uranium, such as fissile material and gas centrifuge components like vacuum pumps and specialized aluminum tubes. Tellingly, the report also documents Iraq's attempts to buy large quantities of uranium from Africa, even though Iraq has no civil nuclear power program."
- Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), 10/09/02
Other Republican Senators:
"The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), 10/09/02
"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British Prime Minister Tony Blair, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and we now know that there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. In fact, senior members of the Iraqi government and members of the al Qaeda network have been in contact for many years. This regime is seeking a nuclear weapon and the delivery capability to go with it."
- Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), 10/09/02
"According to British intelligence, Iraq has also attempted to obtain uranium from Africa. This is extraordinarily troubling. Since Iraq has no active civil nuclear power program or nuclear powerplants, it simply has no peaceful reason to attempt to secure uranium. In addition, the Iraqi Government has attempted to procure tens of thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes that could be used in centrifuges designed to enrich uranium to produce the fissile material necessary for a nuclear bomb."
- Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), 10/10/02
"This evening I will talk about Saddam Hussein's past, his present, and what I consider his greatest danger, a robust biological weapons program. More than chemical and nuclear weapons, Saddam's biological weapons pose a unique and immediate threat. Unlike other conventional weapons, they are easily made. They can be readily concealed and are beyond the reach of inspectors and can readily be delivered across borders and, yes, even across oceans. In the hands of a madman, biological weapons literally threaten us all."
- Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), 10/09/02
Republican Representatives:
"Mr. Speaker, Aflatoxin, a biological weapon that has no battlefield use, something I only recently read about, as it has become apparent that this weapon has been designed and put on missiles able to be delivered by Saddam Hussein, no battlefield use, no military advantage. Somebody has written it could keep a lieutenant from becoming a general, but otherwise has no effect on the battlefield that day. It is designed to end life, it is designed to end life in a slow and painful way. The greatest target of aflatoxin are children, children who, many of whom, would eventually die from liver cancer if this particular weapon is used. In so many ways it sums up Saddam Hussein."
- Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), 10/08/02
"Today, we face a new challenge, a homicidal dictator striving to acquire the means to threaten our civilization and kill millions of our fellow Americans. Saddam Hussein already has the means; he only lacks the material needed to build an atomic bomb. It has been widely reported that he could build a bomb within a year were he to acquire certain materials. A nuclear armed Saddam Hussein would represent a clear and present danger to our nation."
- Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX), 10/09/02
"President Bush certainly understands this imperative for action. The President is demonstrating the strong, moral leadership to find and defeat threats to the United States before they strike. Because once a madman like Saddam Hussein is able to deliver his arsenal, whether it is chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, there is no telling when an American city will be attacked at his direction or with his support."
- Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), 10/10/02
"Saddam Hussein is seeking the means to murder millions in just a single moment. He is trying to spread that grip of fear beyond his own borders, and he is consumed with hatred for America."
- Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), 10/10/02
"Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein has intensified his efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Iraq has also sought to build and enhance delivery systems that can be used to deliver chemical, biological or nuclear weapons"
- Rep. Vito Fossella (R-NY), 10/17/02
"I rise in support of this resolution, because there is nothing more frightening and the prospect of Saddam Hussein or any terrorist using poison gas, germs, or radiation bombs against innocent people in freedom-loving nations. The stark reality is that Saddam Hussein has committed these horrific acts before, and he may do so again without warning."
- Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), 10/8/02
"In 1941 President Roosevelt asked Winston Churchill what the new war should be called. Churchill replied that it should be called the ``Unnecessary War,'' because throughout the 1930s Hitler had done this: he had declared his intent; he had written a book about it; he had built his arsenal and military; started the Holocaust; invaded Poland and Denmark; and refused diplomatic settlement. Most of Europe, and the United States in addition, hoped that Hitler would be satisfied with his latest conquest. So we sat and we watched, and we sat and we watched. Churchill's point was this: Hitler could have been stopped in 1935 or 1936 or maybe 1937 with few or no casualties at all. By 1941 he was poised to conquer the world; and as a result, 50 million people died.
There are some parallels I think with our present situation, because Saddam Hussein has, number one, declared his intent to move against his neighbors. No one doubts his motives or intentions. He has killed thousands of his own people, which is very similar to the Holocaust. He has invaded Kuwait, similar to what Hitler did in Poland. He developed weapons of mass destruction, and he has used them. And he has defied all diplomatic resolution of the problem. One thing is different in 2002 from that which was present in 1941, and that is that today's weapons can kill hundreds of thousands of people, where in 1941 a bomb or a shell could maybe kill 100 or tens or whatever."
- Rep. Tom Osborne (R-NE), 10/08/02
"The overwhelming evidence is that Iraq continues to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability and is actively developing a nuclear weapons capability. Moreover, declassified intelligence reports document ties between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, including the presence of senior members of al Qaeda in Baghdad. We also know from high-ranking terrorist prisoners at Guantanamo Bay that Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda in developing chemical and biological weapons."
- Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-MN), 10/08/02
"I am very happy that the gentleman from Texas [Ron Paul] does not want us to be at war with Iraq. But the fact is, Saddam Hussein is at war with us, no matter where we would like to be. And if we permit Saddam Hussein to have nuclear and chemical and biological weapons, weapons of mass destruction, he will kill millions of Americans. Make no mistake about it. He has a blood feud with us."
- Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 12/19/01
"And let me note this. Rebuilding Iraq will be much easier than building Afghanistan. Iraq has enormous resources that have been channeled away by Saddam Hussein to develop chemical and biological weapons and to develop nuclear weapons. Those billions of dollars can be put to use to build a better Iraq, and the people will applaud us for helping them to that end."
- Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 10/8/02
"This is not just a dictator. There are many dictators in the world. This is a dictator who holds a blood grudge against us, who has now the ability, or he is trying to achieve the ability, to obtain those weapons that would permit him to murder millions of Americans. This is not just any dictator. This is a dictator with billions of dollars of oil wealth that he is using to obtain these weapons of mass destruction."
- Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) on Saddam Hussein, 10/8/02
"Mr. Speaker, not since Hitler and not since Stalin have we seen so much evil delivered by one man. On top of that, these are the least of the reasons why this authorization is needed. [Saddam Hussein] has amassed a large cache of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction and is aggressively seeking nuclear weapons. He sees America as the only obstacle to his perverse ambitions, and that is what he shares with al Qaeda, these terrorists against us, this deep hatred for America. We must not let him share anything else with these terrorists."
- Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), 10/08/02
"Some say until Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States and until he both has a nuclear weapon and threatens to use it, or until we have smoking-gun evidence Saddam Hussein launched the planes into the World Trade Center, we should be content to contain and deter an Iraqi regime openly amassing weapons of mass death. I could not disagree more. Saddam Hussein will not be deterred, and he will not be contained."
- Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT), 10/08/02
"We now know Saddam Hussein is actively seeking nuclear weapons capability, and with fissile material, could build one within a year. A nuclear strike made against us or our allies in the region could result in millions dead. Either Saddam Hussein acquires a nuclear weapon, or we ensure he is stopped."
- Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), 10/09/02
"Does Saddam have chemical and biological weapons? Absolutely. Where did he get it from? He got it from those 37 transfers that we knew about that are now in the record that we did nothing about."
- Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), 10/09/02
"Saddam Hussein is an enemy of the United States. This is a Stalin and a Hitler who has the capability of murder of thousands of innocent American men, women, and children, and who supports and harbors terrorists."
- Rep. "Joe" Wilson (R-SC), 10/08/02 [Author's note - His real first name is Addison]
Moving on up (Republicans who have moved to the Senate since 2002):
"The threat to our Nation from Saddam Hussein's weapons programs and his growing ties to the networks of international terror cannot be underestimated and should not be ignored. Willful blindness to this threat will not make it go away."
- then-Rep. Richard Burr (R-NC), 10/09/02
"Let there be no mistake about it. As the number one target of Saddam Hussein's wrath, there is no question as to who these dangerous weapons would be used against; that is, the United States and our friends. The cost of inaction will be paid for with the blood of innocent Americans."
- then-Rep. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), 10/09/02
"Saddam Hussein has repeatedly demonstrated he is a threat to peaceful nations around the world. He has the money to finance his hostile intentions, he has the capabilities to blackmail nations with the use of weapons of mass destruction, and has shown a willingness to use them."
- then-Rep. Jim DeMint (R-SC), 10/09/02
"The gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) says that Saddam Hussein is a minor threat to this country. If you believe that, vote no. But you ought to go visit the CIA, and you ought to talk to our intelligence communities. He is building missiles beyond the agreement, cease-fire agreement, for a purpose, to kill people. I admire the gentleman from California (Mr. LANTOS) so much because he suffered from the politics of appeasement. This is not 1964. This is the late 30's. This is Neville Chamberlain coming back. Peace in our time. What a joke. There will be no peace in our time as long as we have the politics of appeasement and let a guy like Saddam Hussein get away with building mobile biological weapons systems, larger missiles, procuring materials that could only be used in nuclear weapons. For us to sit back would be a national travesty, a world travesty. Never again shall we do this."
- then-Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), 12/19/01
The Loyal Opposition:
"The President continues to make his case before the Congress, before the American people, and before the United Nations to garner support and legitimacy in the case against Saddam Hussein. There is no question about any of the facts the President has cited in making the case for urgent action against the threat posed by the Iraqi current regime."
- Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), 10/08/02
"I support this resolution because it will save lives. It will manifest the principled purpose of this country to use our great might and power as a force for saving life. Tonight Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government maintain an arsenal of weapons of mass death. Iraq tonight possesses biological weapons. It possesses chemical weapons. The best estimate of the most optimistic observers, in 5 to 7 years Iraq will possess nuclear weapons. Others are more pessimistic. They believe it will be a matter of months."
- Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ), 10/08/02
"Make no mistake about it, these weapons of mass death are not pointed at the Germans who doubt the scope of this risk. They are not pointed at Saddam's Arab neighbors who scoff at the necessity of this mission. These weapons of mass death are meant to kill Americans, and we will not and should not ask anyone's permission to defend the people of this country."
- Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ), 10/08/02
"I favor this resolution because in a world where we have rogue regimes possessing weapons of mass death, and suicidal terrorists who are all too eager to use them against us, weapons of that nature in the hands of a regime such as Saddam Hussein's represents an unacceptable risk to the safety and well-being of the American people. As much as I wish we could ignore this threat, it is my heartfelt conviction that in all conscience we cannot. Finally, along with my colleagues, I support this resolution because I believe we must learn the terrible lessons from the tragedy of September 11, foremost among which is that we waited too long to address the gathering danger in Afghanistan. If we had acted sooner, perhaps--just perhaps--we could have saved 3,000 innocent lives: men, women, and children. We waited too long to act. Let us not make that mistake again."
- Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), 10/08/02
"Month by month, Saddam Hussein increases his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, while he aggressively works to build nuclear capacity. The CIA now believes that Iraq could make a nuclear weapon within a year if it manages to obtain weapons-grade material from abroad. The CIA further reports that Saddam is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons, and Iraq's expanding international trade provides growing access to the necessary materials."
- Rep. Shelly Berkley (D-NV), 10/09/02
"If this President attempts to take this Nation to war over return of Kuwaiti property, if this President attempts to take this Nation to war based on this authority for any reason--any reason--other than weapons of mass destruction, I will be on this floor every day taking issue with this President attempting to stop the war. I cannot fathom anyone suggesting that Kuwaiti prisoners warrant us going to war. This is about weapons of mass destruction, in this Senator's view."
- Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), 10/10/02
"There are certain undeniable facts about Saddam Hussein , who has so ruthlessly ruled Iraq for more than 20 years. He alone in the world has used chemical weapons, against his own people. He has a sophisticated biological weapons program. Most importantly, he has an insatiable appetite for nuclear weapons, which, but for the foresight of Israel and the success of the Gulf War, he would already possess."
- then-Rep. Brad Carson (D-OK), 10/09/02
"So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our Nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein: This is your last chance; disarm or be disarmed."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), 10/10/02
"Because this resolution is improved, because I believe Saddam Hussein represents a real threat, and because I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice at this critical moment, I will vote to give the President the authority he needs, but I respect those who reach different conclusions. For me, the deciding factor is my belief that a united Congress will help the President unite the world, and by uniting the world we can increase the world's chances of succeeding in this effort and reduce both the risks and the costs America may have to bear."
- then-Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD), 10/10/02
"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."
- then-Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), 10/10/02
"Saddam Hussein has stockpiled chemical and biological weapons, as all have mentioned today, and is seeking the means to deliver them, if he does not already have the capacity now. He is developing missile delivery systems that could threaten American citizens, service members, and our own allies in the region. But in today's world, a sworn enemy of America does not need a missile to deliver weapons of mass destruction. All he needs is a suitcase, a small plane, a cargo ship, or a single suicidal terrorist."
- Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN), 10/09/02
"Saddam Hussein's track record is too compelling to ignore, and we know that he continues to develop weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear devices; and he may soon have the ability to use nuclear weapons against other nations."
- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-MO), 10/10/02
"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."
- Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), 10/10/02
"[Saddam Hussein] has continued, without question, to develop weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them on distant targets"
- Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), 10/2/02
"What weapons, exactly, does Saddam Hussein have, and what could he do with them? When we are talking about this dangerous dictator, that is not a hypothetical question. We can see what he has done already with the chemicals he has developed. We don't have to imagine; we need only extrapolate. Saddam Hussein not only has large and growing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. He alone among the dictators of the world has shown a willingness to use them."
- Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), 10/10/02
"We know Iraq continues to produce chemical agents for chemical weapons. We know Saddam has rebuilt previously destroyed production plants across Iraq. We know he has retained the key personnel formerly engaged in the chemical weapons program. He has mustard gas, VX nerve agent, and a range of other chemical weapons."
- Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), 10/10/02
"There is now a consensus belief that Saddam could have an atomic weapon within months of acquiring fissile material. Based on the best estimates, his regime could manufacture the fuel itself within as little as 3 years. There is no way to measure now long it might take Saddam to acquire the fuel from an outside source. He could be attempting to do so as we speak. Indeed, it would be naive to assume otherwise."
- Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), 10/10/02
A (somewhat) uplifting Ending (Representatives who got it right in 2002):
"I am not convinced this administration possesses the political commitment to reconstruct the damage after we defeat Saddam Hussein to bring democracy to that country. It will entail appropriations of hundreds of millions of dollars a year, year after year after year. Do we have the political will and the financial commitment to do that in that country, in that region? (..) This Congress should not authorize the use of force unless the administration details what it plans to do and how we will deal with the consequences of our actions, namely, what will the U.S. role be after military action is completed? We should set stronger conditions before any military action is permitted."
- Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), 10/09/02
"For all those spouting jingoes about going to war with Iraq, about the urgent need for regime change no matter what the cost, about the need to take out the evil dictator - and make no mistakes, I know and understand that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator - I urge Senators to go down on The Capital Mall and look at the Vietnam memorial. Nearly every day you will find someone at that wall weeping for a loved one, a father, a son, a brother, a friend, whose name is on that wall.
If we are fortunate, a war with Iraq will be a short one with few American deaths, as in the Persian Gulf war, and we can go around again waving flags and singing patriotic songs. Or, maybe we will find ourselves building another wall on the mall.
I will always remember the words of Senator Wayne Morse, one of the two Senators who opposed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.
During the debate on the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, he stated: ``The resolution will pass, and Senators who vote for it will live to regret it.'' Many Senators did live to regret it."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), 10/10/02
"I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I am not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a dramatic action, but when the administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the administration's motives in insisting on action at this time.
What am I talking about? I am talking about the spectacle of the President and senior administration officials citing a reported connection to al-Qaida one day, weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day, and then on some days the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war.
For some of these, we may well be willing to send some 250,000 Americans into harm's way; for others, frankly, probably not.
These litanies of various justifications--whether the original draft resolution discussions or the new White House resolution, or, regrettably throughout the President's speech in Cincinnati--in my view set the bar for an alternative to a U.S. invasion so high I am afraid it almost locks in--it almost requires--a potentially extreme and reckless solution to these problems.
I am especially troubled by these shifting justifications because I and most Americans strongly support the President on the use of force in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001. I voted for S.J. Res. 23--the use of force resolution--to go after al-Qaida and the Taliban and those associated with the tragedies of September 11, and I strongly supported military actions pursuant to S.J. Res. 23. But the relentless attempt to link 9/11 and the issue of Iraq has been disappointing to me for months, culminating in the President's singularly unpersuasive attempt in Cincinnati to intertwine 9/11 and Iraq, to make the American people believe there are no important differences between the perpetrators of 9/11 and Iraq."
- Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), 10/09/02
"In fact, on March 11 of this year, Vice President Cheney, following a meeting with Tony Blair, raised the possibility of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists. He said: We have to be concerned about the potential marriage, if you will, between a terrorist organization like al-Qaida and those who hold or are proliferating knowledge about weapons of mass destruction. In March, there was a potential marriage.
Then the Vice President said on September 8, without evidence--and no evidence has been given since that time--that there are: ``Credible but unconfirmed'' intelligence reports that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta met in Prague with senior Iraqi intelligence officials a few months before the 9/11 attacks. We have seen no proof of that.
Finally, the Secretary of Defense follows on September 27 of this year, and says: There is ``bulletproof evidence'' of Iraqi links to al-Qaida, including the recent presence of senior al-Qaida members in Baghdad.
I don't know where this comes from. This so-called ``potential marriage'' in March is beginning to sound like a 25th wedding anniversary at this point.
The facts just aren't there. At least they have not been presented to me in the situations where they should have been presented to me as an elected Member of this body. In other words, the administration appears to use 9/11 and the language of terrorism and the connection to Iraq too loosely--almost like a bootstrap."
- Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), 10/09/02
And now.. the pre-emptive FAQ!
Q - "Why post this?"
A - Several reasons. First off, to help get people the specific quotes from people who will be up for re-election soon. Second, to provide some names for who really should get asked "Would you have voted for the war if you knew what you knew now?"
Q - "But a lot of Democrats thought Saddam had WMDs, what about that?"
A - Yes they did, but they didn't go to the lengths of the GOP at making incorrect statements. Some of our politicians did buy into "Mass Death" and all that, and they'll have to explain it.
Q - "Democrats who voted against the resolution also said Saddam had WMDs, what about that?"
A - And they didn't vote for the resolution. Why should I bash them for doing the right thing?
Q - "Wheres [Politician name here]?"
A - I didn't find anything quotable from them. Although I should have put up a McCain quote, but then again, we all know McCain is a two-faced politician.
Q - "Where's Lincoln Chaffee?"
A - He voted against the war and said nothing of note.
Q - "Your list of anti-war Congressional quotes sucks, add this!"
A - It probably does, you all can post Congressional Record quotes too if you wanna.
Q - "It's out of context!"
A - The catch with politicians is that they make long speeches, therefore I cannot quote the entire speech. I did not present any quotes in a way to decieve you all.
Q - "Really, what can I do with this list?"
A - Slice and dice it and spread the quotes which you find notable. Also, find more blatantly assbackwards claims by the GOP.
Q - "Isn't this old news?"
A - I prefer to use the word "information". I don't present this as breaking news, but as brain candy to spread.
Q - "Coke or Pepsi?"
A - Coke all the way
That's all, i'll field any questions or comments.