The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Monday, November 07, 2005

I would like to devote this post to describing the truth seeking efforts of Democrats

Sorry, after thinking real hard I could not think of any truth seeking efforts on the part of Democrats.


  • At 3:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Love your values.

    In red states in 2001, there were 572,000 divorces … Blue states recorded 340,000 … In the same year, 11 red states had higher rates of divorce than any blue state … In each of the red states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and New Mexico, 46.3 percent of all births were to unwed mothers … In blue states, on average, that percentage was 31.7 … Delaware has the highest rate of births to teenage mothers among all blue states, yet 17 red states have a higher rate … Of those red states, 15 have at least twice the rate as that of Massachusetts … There were more than 100 teen pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19 in 5 red states in 2002 … None of the blue states had rates that high … The rate of teen births declined in 46 states from 1988 to 2000 … It climbed in 3 red states and saw no change in another … The per capita rate of violent crime in red states is 421 per 100,000 … In blue states, it’s 372 per 100,000 … The per capita rate of murder and non-negligent manslaughter in Louisiana is 13 per 100,000 … In Maine, it’s 1.2 per 100,000 … As of 2000, 37 states had statewide policies or procedures to address domestic violence … All 13 that didn’t were red states … The 5 states with the highest rates of alcohol dependence or abuse are red states … The 5 states with the highest rates of alcohol dependence or abuse among 12- to 17-year-olds are also red states … The per capita rate of methamphetamine-lab seizures in California is 2 per 100,000 … In Arkansas, it’s 20 per 100,000 … The number of meth-lab seizures in red states increased by 38 percent from 1999 to 2003 … In the same time frame, it decreased by 38 percent in blue states … Residents of the all-red Mountain States are the most likely to have had 3 or more sexual partners in the previous year … Residents of all-blue New England are the least likely to have had more than 1 partner in that span … Residents of the mid-Atlantic region of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey were the most likely to be sexually abstinent … Residents of the all-red West South Central region (Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana) were the least likely … Five red states reported more than 400 cases of chlamydia per 100,000 residents in 2002 … No blue state had a rate that high … The per capita rate of gonorrhea in red states was 140 per 100,000 … In blue states, it was 99 per 100,000.

  • At 6:51 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Two comments:

    1) What do you claim is the cause and effect relationship to each of those numbers (assuming they are accurate)

    For instance, is the divorce rate higher in red states because marriage rates (verses living together) is higher in blue states?

    2) What is the breakdown (blue/red) county by county across the US?

    Since you are giving no credit to this list of numbers should I assume they are your numbers? So you should be able to break them down by red and blue county. Looking forward to seeing that.

  • At 9:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Judging from your blog, you have no interest in facts if they don't fit your ideology, but knock yourself out getting to the numbers you're claiming to want. I got them from hours of work on the Guttmacher Institute page at and the US Census Bureau.

    This is about hypocrite Republican conservative Christians and their supposed moral values. Cause and effect? These stats should cause Reds to look in the mirror before spouting off about God and family values with the effect of getting them to realize that their Red brethren are the ones most needing that lecture.

  • At 10:51 AM, Blogger LASunsett said…


    Did you ever stop to consider that red state birth rates are higher because abortion rates are lower, than in blue states?

    Also, what the hell does all of this have to do with the original statement of the post?

    Name some REAL truth seeking efforts of the Democratic Party. Not the Guttmacher Institute, not the US Census Bureau, but the Democratic Party.

    Leftists love to change the subject and attack the poster, when they have no evidence to back up their weak and faulty claims.

  • At 11:42 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Anon, you are the one throwing numbers around. You do the research. I say the numbers you gave do not reflect the whole picture but only a portion of it to fit your whims. Truth is more than just numbers. It also includes why. My point on the divorce rate and lasunsett's point on the birth rate shows how simple numbers can be skewed and not really reflect truth.

    I'll be waiting for more info or assume these numbers are pretty worthless.

    Also, since you are a master of numbers, how many in the red states are espousing family values AND yest also are not living by them? If I espouse family values and morality, yet my neighbor who does no such thing lives contrary to the family values I espouse how does that make me a hypocrite? Newsflash, it doesn't.

    Gee, and it looked so good on paper.

  • At 11:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    lasunsett, the original post said nothing about the Democratic Party. It said Democrats. I'm a Democrat. Seeking truth. Next time you should read the post before getting all high and mighty and making yourself look foolish.

    The blog host hasn't responded, but your post proves my point that you have no interest in facts if they don't suit you. Real truth seeking efforts require real sources of research information like the US Census Bureau. Guttmacher used blinded peer review of their reports. Do you know what that means? Do you get your "facts" from anyplace other than Fox, Drudge, Limbaugh or bloggers like Logic?

    Republican voted 3 times unanimously against the Plame inquiry. 31 Democrats voted for the resolution of inquiry into Clinton. 31 including that crazy lefty nutjob Kucinich to show that Democrats are so scared of the truth.

    It's you who are weak, faulty and complete hypocrites.

  • At 12:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I already did the research. That was my post. Remember? Stop being lazy and do the work yourself. You're proving that these facts are too uncomfortable for you to face since you're dodging all over the place. You call these numbers worthless despite having the hard data available to you. Try to debase me by saying I'm just throwing numbers around despite being someone who loves to throw lots of unsubstantiated claims around. Go ahead. Look up the numbers. I dare ya. Both of you. Be men. You can handle it, can't ya?

    And gee, I don't see you criticizing your son's list of morals numbers. Where'd his data come from?

    You are the ones who are hedging and dodging reality. My post was simply a bunch of statistics. Numbers that anyone can look up. And it makes you squirm because the picture it paints is not pretty.

    Supposedly 59 million people are espousing family values (if we believe the 2004 election numbers) and those are the Red states. When Reds get uppity about promiscuity and unwed mothers and drugs and look at numbers like my post point out, that's hypocrisy.

    I don't know you and no, your neighbor can't make you a hypyocrite, but you should know your Red brethren have zero moral high ground and realize that the Blue states are much more in tune with family values than the Reds care to admit.

  • At 12:36 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    " the original post said nothing about the Democratic Party. It said Democrats. I'm a Democrat."

    I am sorry. How silly of me for thinking that Democrats belong to the Democratic Party. How utterly ridiculous is it of me, to think that Democrats would agree with the stances, tactics, and philosophies of the Democratic Party?

    And you, are a Democrat. You freely admit that.

    So you are going to insult the world's collective (there's that word you guys like) intelligence, by saying that you and the Democratic party are not on the same sheet of music, you are not the same thing in this instance?

    You are not seeking truth here, you just want to pick an argument, over semantics. You are a hair-splitter that has a chip on your shoulder.

    If you really sought truth, you'd take the blog host on what his argument is or is not, and do it respectfully. He has a lot of posts here for you to display your talents and seek knowledge and understanding, but you pick the short post, to go off on some unrelated tangient. Then, you throw a few numbers out and expect us to be impressed?

    I am not.

    And, you know what else? You have thoroughly proved the blog host correct.

  • At 1:01 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    "I already did the research. That was my post. Remember? Stop being lazy and do the work yourself"

    You did incomplete research to provide numbers that suit your needs. Who is the lazy one?

    "You call these numbers worthless despite having the hard data available to you"

    You gave raw data, not hard data.

    "Go ahead. Look up the numbers. I dare ya. Both of you. Be men. You can handle it, can't ya?"

    If you are a child let me know so I am sure to be nice to you.

    "When Reds get uppity about promiscuity and unwed mothers and drugs and look at numbers like my post point out, that's hypocrisy"

    Your point is only valid if you can show a one to one match between those espousing family values and those not living by family values. If these are not the same exact match sets, but just happen to live in a red state then your claim is meaningless. Of course there is always a few, but you need to prove a trend and you have not done that. When you have those numbers we can talk about that. Don't be lazy and ask me to do your work for you.

    "I don't know you and no, your neighbor can't make you a hypyocrite, but you should know your Red brethren have zero moral high ground and realize that the Blue states are much more in tune with family values than the Reds care to admit"

    By the way, I live in a Blue state. So how does that figure into your numbers and 'logic'. I do live in a 'Red' county, which is why I say you need to study the numbers by county.

  • At 1:09 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    "And gee, I don't see you criticizing your son's list of morals numbers. Where'd his data come from?"

    His numbers were a poll. My comments on polls are well documented here. When it comes to my son, I will admit bias. So if you have a question with his numbers ask him.

  • At 2:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You guys are funny. These numbers really have you shaken, don't they?

    Gee lasunsett, I bet if you handed this blog string to 200 anonymous people, you would be the one seen as splitting hairs and changing the subject. You're picking the argument over semantics. It's tiresome and as a distraction it won't work.

    I post as a Democrat offering a truth seeking effort. Fully responsive to the original post. The host said he could not think of any truth seeking efforts on the part of Democrats, so I gave him an example. Then cited Clinton. Now I'll cite Daschle and the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission that Bush initially opposed. Like he initially opposed Lieberman's Office of Homeland Security. Remember that Republicans control all 3 branches of government and have effectively stopped most inquiry motions in committee. And all you do is duck and weave and pull out the smoke and mirrors about me versus the Democratic Party and sheet music and so yes, you hypocrites get stuck in my craw. Call it a chip on my shoulder or whatever, but you folks crack me up and make me have to say things.

    If you want to apply your idea, fine. So I represent the Democratic Party and Blue states and you two represent the Republican Party and Red states. So I guess our host is out of luck trying to duck the hypocrisy charge. Sorry All_I, but it's his idea. Hopefully you two can kiss and make up sometime.

    And to our host, you don't need to worry about being nice to me. You just need to get real. Raw data versus hard data. Hmmmm. These are different in what way? I just gave you resources. Reliable resources. Not some blog or partisan windbag. You can get data for your side too. Blue states have higher abortion rates and higher access to abortion services. Happy now? All you're attempting to do is try to change the subject and you get so flumoxed in the process that you miss the figures saying Blue Delaware has the highest teen birth rate. Nothing to be proud of. C'mon you guys. Face it that you're on thin ice here.

    The statistics I provided are proven trends. Look at the source data before you say anything next time. Again, hand this blog string to any anonymous group and have them tell you who's being lazy.

    Poll or not, your son's numbers aren't documented in any way and that seems fine to you. But that's being picky. He is your son after all. I just hope he gets more interested in factual raw hard data than it appears you are modeling for him.

  • At 2:35 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Anon, since I am now convinced you are a kid I will try to be nice. Or perhaps you are a friend of mine trying to pull my leg anonymously. In the real world you need to prove your points. You have not come close and yet one has to admire your confidence that you have.

    Far from being shaken by your "numbers" my points have answered and shown you have a lot of work to do before coming close to proving your point. Start by answering my questions about the one to one match and the county by county and the fact I am from a Blue state.

    I'm sure you were real proud of your numbers and it must be a sore spot that they aren't the magic bullet you thought they were. Keep trying, though. Don't want to dash your spirit.

  • At 2:40 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    "You guys are funny. These numbers really have you shaken, don't they?"

    They do not phase me in the slightest. Don't delude yourself. I have read and analyzed much data over the years, your numbers prove nothing.

    Tell us all what your point is, be concrete and succint, if you think you can. Cut the double talk, excuse-making, and subject changing. What do you want us to take away from this data?

    If you can't do that. I am done with you. I am not going to waste any more of my valuable time, trying to reason with someone that can't come to a point and support that point.

  • At 3:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Nice try All_I. Pretend I am a child all you want. You two are perfect examples of the mirrored echo chamber that you have no idea you are in. How's the Kool-Aid in there?

    My point was clearly stated in my second post lasunsett. Read it and get over your feigned tough guy superiority. But let me restate it differently since you seemed to miss it.

    Those without sin should cast the first stone.

    Simple enough? Got it? It's an idea that says in big capital letters to not be a big hypocrite. Go ask God to support the point.

    For the hundredth time, the numbers are statistics.

    That the two of you seem to want me to offer up information as if we were in a 300 level college class on civics is ridiculous. You just can't face these realities can you? Go to any reliable data source and just look for yourselves. You're web guys. You know about Google and all that.

  • At 3:14 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    Anony mouse's point:

    "Those without sin should cast the first stone."

    Good, now we are getting somewhere.

    Now kindly show the correlation between those numbers you rifled off and your claim. And we have something, to go with.

  • At 6:00 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Anonymous busted on the truth issue

    Well Mr. Anonymous it looks like you have been busted on the truth issue. I found your list of statistics word for word at the following link:

    At that link the credit for the research states: "By the American Prospect Staff"

    Yet you state "I got them from hours of work on the Guttmacher Institute page at and the US Census Bureau"

    It is doubtful that you are on the American Prospect staff. If you were you would have given credit to the others that worked on this little ditty. If you are on the staff and working alone, it makes no sense that you would not link back to your own source to give yourself credit.

    So here is a perfect example where more truth makes the conservative (me) look better and makes the liberal (you) look worse. Thanks for proving my point.

  • At 7:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Very well done All. Congratulations on the accurate sleuthing.

    Now for the bad news.

    I was involved in the number crunching.

    The American Prospect is a big organization that utilizes a lot of resources like editors, columnists, interns, Guttmacher and the US Census among others when compiling staff reports. You think Drudge or O'Reilly or Fox do all their own research?

    I gave you the source data for the reports, and that wasn't sufficient for you. Just think of how your leftist paranoia alarm would have been ringing if I had just cited the published report. As I mentioned straight off, you're not particularly interested in facts if they don't fit your ideology.

    Sorry to have to burst your bubble of "gotcha" glibness. Guess you still look pretty clueless.

    So let me offer another clearly worded point for you and lasunsett.

    With Republicans controlling all 3 branches of government, Democrats have had most all of their truth seeking efforts killed in committee.

    Clinton Inquiry.
    9/11 Commission.
    Plame Inquiry.

    Here's something else to think about.

    We wouldn't need so much truth seeking if people told the truth.

    "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
    - Dick Cheney, 8/26/2002
    "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
    - Ari Fleischer, 1/9/2003
    "We know where they [WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
    - Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/2003
    "No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored."
    - Condoleeza Rice, 6/8/2003
    "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
    - Bill Clinton

  • At 8:02 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Sorry anon, your attempt to recover does not fly. Nice try, but when you start under false pretenses it is hard to recover. Not to mention the numbers still say nothing and you refuse to address the valid questions we have regarding them.

    Nice list of quotes. Once again you come here with a dishonest approach leaving out the other parts of the truth all the while lecturing me on truth. Here is a list I copied from transcriptions provided by a blogger named "G". If Bush lied, the Dems lied:

    "[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

    "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

    "Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

    "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

    "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

    "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

    "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

    "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

    "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

    "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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

    "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

    "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

    "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. 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." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

    "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

    "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

    "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

    "Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

    "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

    "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

    "(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

    "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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

    "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

    "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

    "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

    "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

    "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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    "Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    "Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

  • At 8:47 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    "With Republicans controlling all 3 branches of government, Democrats have had most all of their truth seeking efforts killed in committee."

    The way it works is you have to win an election or two, then you can be in charge. Most of my life, Democrats were in control of both houses. They got to make the rules, then. But after they were voted out, then all of a sudden we start hearing the whining and complaining.

    So, stop your whining, get some ideas, run on them, then the people will decide if your ideas are good enough to vote you in. You haven't done that recently and that is why you haven't won any elections and why you likely will not, for some time.

    Now that was clear and concise, was it not?

  • At 5:52 AM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    "Not to mention the numbers still say nothing and you refuse to address the valid questions we have regarding them."

    Gosh. I almost for got about the numbers, myself. Anony mouse has changed the subject so many times.

  • At 12:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Democrats propose Plan for Iraq - 11/14/05

    "Mr. Warner [R-VA] said he decided to take the Democratic proposal and edit it to his satisfaction in an effort to find common ground between the parties on the issue."
    -NY Times 11/15/05

    "Republicans largely adopted the Democratic proposal as their own."

    Standard play. Democrats come up with the ideas and Republicans claim them as their own. Nice work boys.

  • At 12:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    And then the Republican defenders start up with their chants that Democrats have no ideas again.

    Repeat, ad nauseum.

  • At 5:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    bear share keygen
    spybot search and destroy 1.3 crack
    xenofex 2 crack
    crack adobe acrobat 7.0 professional tryout
    windowblinds 4.5 crack download
    f1 challenge no cd crack
    ulead gif animator v5.05 crack
    nero ultra keygen
    tcmdr650.exe crack
    chronosync crack

    crack for 1 click dvd copy
    diskeeper crack warez
    esprit crack
    yasa dvd to avi crack
    elwave 7.5 crack
    registry mechanic crack code
    infovox crack
    scheduleview crack
    pc mightymax crack serial
    image2pdf v1.7 crack
    maximus arcade keygen
    atomic cannon full warez
    unigraphics crack
    acdsee classic keygen
    moffsoft calculator 2 crack


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home