I wonder if the Limey Liberals are as hypocritical as our home=grown American ones? These guys change positions more than the Watchtower writing staff!
The Hypocrisy of Democrats
Speaking yesterday before a union rally in Worcester, Massachusetts, Senator Edward Kennedy announced: “My vote against this misbegotten [Iraq War] is the best vote I have cast in the United States Senate since I was elected in 1962.” What Kennedy forgot to mention is that his vote against the Iraq War further proves that his belief structure adjusts to wind speeds, and Massachusetts can get mighty windy.
Speaking at the Johns Hopkins School Of Advanced International Studies only weeks before Kennedy cast his “nay” vote on the Iraq War, the senator remarked, “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” (9/27/02)
Nine days later on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Kennedy added: “Saddam Hussein is a dangerous figure. He’s got dangerous weapons.” (10/6/02)
By 2005, Kennedy was singing an altogether different tune:
“Instead of providing open and honest answers . . . the president reverted to the same manipulation of facts to justify a war we never should have fought.”
Of course, Kennedy is not the first (liberal) democrat to change his opinion when the polls began to indicate that the war was unpopular. In fact, between 1998 and 2003, the Iraq WMD song was quite the hit. For music lovers everywhere, I have assembled a compilation of democrats who proudly sang along.
Senator John Kerry–Blues
“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.” Oct. 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...” Jan. 2003
President Bill Clinton–Jazz Fest
“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.” Feb. 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." Feb. 1998
Al Gore–Monotone, I Mean Baritone
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Sept. 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." Sept. 2002
Backup Singers
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.” Madeline Albright, Feb. 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 1998
“[We] 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, (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 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. 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 1999
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 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. 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. 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-Quaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 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. 2002
And here I thought President Bush was behind the faulty intelligence. Impressive how he was able to manipulate his predecessor's intelligence as well while he was governing Texas.
This compilation was brought to you by Dr Politico Records, Inc., and special guest producer Glenn Beck. A source for each quote can be found here.
Getting back to Senator Kennedy, it’s worth mentioning that in the sea of inconsistencies that mark his public service, his vote against the Iraq War was a welcomed change. After all, in 1991, he voted against the Persian Gulf War as well. I guess liberating Kuwait from Saddam’s tyrannous grip did not meet his criteria for a “yea” vote. I wonder where that one falls on his list of favorite votes.
Kennedy’s Inconsistencies
On Abortion:
Until the passage of Roe v Wade, Kennedy held a pro-life position. In a letter dated August 3, 1971, Kennedy wrote to a colleague that the legalization of “abortion on demand” goes against “the value which our civilization places on human life.” Yet, with the flip of a switch, Kennedy has become one of the staunchest supporters of abortion rights.
In 1999, Kennedy voted “nay” on a bill that would ban “partial birth abortions,” the practice of which is both vile and gruesome.
Some of the ex-JW libs here need to eat a nice crow sandwich!
Rex
Here are the Liberal's hypocritical heroes
by Shining One 20 Replies latest social current
-
Shining One
-
the_classicist
These guys change positions more than the Watchtower writing staff!
Yeah, I mean, if politicians do something stupid and find their path is detrimental, they shouldn't change directions, the should stay the course!
-
uninformed
Shining One,
Loved your post. Liberals really bother me.
Any party that bases its entire platform on a mother's RIGHT to kill a fetus, offspring, baby, whatever, is a sick party.
They are almost as bad as the leadership of the WT Society.
Brant Jones
-
Gregor
Liberalism is not so much a political position as an emotional one. Thus the inconsistency and vulnerability to being manipulated. As someone said, liberalism is a mental illness.
-
Satanus
Liberalism is not so much a political position as an emotional one. Thus the inconsistency and vulnerability to being manipulated. As someone said, liberalism is a mental illness.
Ya, guys w emotions are sic k puppies. Maybe the country needs both sides. S -
-
Star Moore
Progressive liberal, democrats rule...
-
foreword
Don't you republicans ever change your stupid story. You've been saying the same thing for like three years.
Anyway, if democrats and republicans believed and were told that Iraq had WMD and they didn't, it just proves that the president, whoever he is and whichever party he's from, does not have access to real intelligence and makes decisions based on the false info. Regardless of the party.
Now if you guys (republicans) really believe that life should be valued, as you seem to be saying by your stance on abortion, why the f*ck did you go out and kill thousands of innocent people in Iraq? No need to answer we know it already....the world is a safer place without Saddam and the Iraqis needed democracy... and the weapons are in Syria.
BTW, you guys are really doing a poor job in Iraq. I wouldn't brag too much.
-
MidwichCuckoo
wonder if the Limey Liberals are as hypocritical as our home
Gosh - I almost read that as a derogatory statement.
-
XJW4EVR
I don't have issues with liberal inconsistencies. I think it's just fine that the Kennedy's (Robert, Jr. to be specific) demand that the rest of Americans abstain from fossil fuels and delve into alternative sources of energy, yet were the biggest NIMBY's when it comes to windmills along the Hyanisport (sp?) coastline. Evidently the Kennedy's didn't want the view of their personal fiefdom impeeded by these windmills.
Or Teddy Kennedy's son who was driving under the infulence, and claimed that he was going to cast a vote at 3 in the morning.
Or Cynthia McKinney who slugged a Capital Hill police officer.
Or William Jefferson, and the hiding of bribe money in his Congressional office. Our this same person comandeering rescue forces after Hurrice Katrina in order to get a laptop and bribe money from his damaged home.
I expect politicians to be hypocrites when it comes to policy. Afterall the only thing they care about is getting re-elected. But I can't abide a hypocrite that thinks just because of their surname or race they are afforded some sort of exception from the laws that apply to everyone else.
