This will be the last Ford product I purchase. Had a 1992 Ford Tempo and
was happy with the life cycle cost and reliability and it encouraged me to
buy another Ford so I purchased the 1998 Windstar and this van requires a
lot of front end work.....yearly. It's not built to sustain our roads here
in Canada. Feel better now! Happily divorced from Ford. Was previously a GM
guy and divorced it too! I'm through with being an American car
enthusiast.......I tried for 20 years. Good bye alt.autos.ford
Why not? It looks like the people in France were right: No WMD have yet to
be found. And the only known connection between Iraq and 9/11 is Bush's
Besides, one of the things Americans fought for in France and the rest of
Europe was freedom of thought. I support the right of French people to have
a different opinion to mine (although mine is usually right) or that of our
non-really elected President.
(Did it ever occur to you that it was odd the people who Bush's brother
appointed and who report to his brother found in favor of Bush in the
recount? Or that Republicans were caught counting ballots with two votes in
favor of Bush in Jackson Count, FL. Or that the Republicans prevented many
blacks from voting in the election (blacks tend to vote for the better
candidate -- the Democrat)?)
A proud Democrat and person ashamed of the US's role in Iraq
You are entitled to you own opinion but not your own facts. In
the first instance France, Germany and Russia
each agreed with the rest of the UN members that Iraq
had WMD and was required under the 14 UN resolutions to dispose
of them. The only difference of opinion was they
were in favor or waiting even longer to determine where the
WMD were. that Iraq listed that they had as part of the
first Gulf War cease fire agreement. The fact they have
yet to be found only adds to the mystery of what happened
to them after the cease fire was signed..
The election board in black counties like Broward tend to
be black and not Republicans. The person that certified the vote
was indeed a Republican but the vote officials involved in the
recounts were Democrats, as were the majority of Justices of the
Florida Supreme Court that ruled that partial recount were
permissible. The Florida court reversed itself and agreed with
the US Supreme Court after is was informed by the US Supreme
Court that its partial recount ruling was in violation of Florida
In addition after the election several national newspapers
syndicates did individual recounts of the ballots after the
Florida election in 2000. Each found that Bush indeed won
the election in fact they discover he won by more votes than
recorded in the official total because Mr. Gore was
credited with several hundred more vote than he actually
I don't intend to debate, facts are not debatable. The fact on
both subjects are readily available to any fair-minded person
willing to do a search.
If Iraq had no WMD then it was a grave mistake on their part to not allow
the UN inspectors to do the job they were assigned. Iraq knew for quite some
time that we were coming, they could have easily moved or hidden whatever
they had. If Clinton hadn't been so busy chasing pussy, Iraq could have been
dealt with a long time ago with much less cost both in dollars and lives.
Yes, it was. But that mistake does not justify Bush going into Iraq to
secure their oil.
The US Army has been in Iraq for quite some time and uses unethical and
illegal tactics to get information from its prisoners. One would think that
if WMD were there, they would have been found.
Bush is just finishing up his Daddy's unfiinished business. And the the US
said to Iraq that it is OK to go into Kuwait in the first place. Bush I and
Bush II were just doing their oil business work using the US Gov't. The
Bushes are great at Krony politics. Too bad thousands of people are dying
because of it.
What was there to control? Saddam didn't have WMD, Saddam wasn't sending
people out looking for nuclear bombs, and we had no business in Iraq. Iraq
was a soviern country.
One of the reason why Bush went into Iraq so fast is that he had a flimsy
excuse to go that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. And it didn't. The report
about getting nuclear arms was based on poor intelligence. And no WMD have
Is this the best you can do? Or is Krony politics ok? Haliburton has
billions of contracts for Cheney and Bush and Bush oil friends in Texas are
making billions more from gas sales. And Cheney wouldn't tell us who were
his advisors for his energy policy meeting.
Here are quotes from Clinton and every other democrat I could fine in a 2
minute search on google regarding Saddma's WMD) I guess GW Bush had you all
hoodwinked into beleiveing their were WMD's way back in 1998........
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
This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the
Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.
"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
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top
military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
His remarks followed that briefing.
"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University
by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998-Truth!
This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright.
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if
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
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-Truth!
According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by
several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John
McCain and Joseph Lieberman.
"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-Truth!
The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional
"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-Truth!
This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and
criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting
into the country. Albright said, "There has never been an embargo against
food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his
money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons
of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies."
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace 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, 2001Truth!
The only letter with this quote from December 5, 2001 that we could find did
not include the participation of Senator Bob Graham, but it was signed nine
other senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman.
It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq.
"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-Truth!
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!
This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San
Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.
"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
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002-Truth!
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.
"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-Truth!
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would
authorize using force against Iraq.
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though
there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need
to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would
be the need at that point.
"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-Truth!
Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate
over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.
"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
Senator Rockefeller's statements were a part of the debate over using force
against Saddam Hussein.
"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
Senator Waxman's contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.
"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 Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did
not feel that using force at that time was a good option.
"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
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
In a speech to Georgetown University.
Last updated 4/16/04
How quickly they can forget, in an election year. What is more
amazing is the number of people that actually believe what guys
like Kennedy ital. are now saying, even when given the facts.
Lies, war for oil, avenge daddy's assignation attempt. If it
were not so important to get out the truth
it would be laughable.
Brad Coon wrote:
No, a family pattern of decption, starting before World War II when his
family members were the board of directors of a German bank. Do you find it
odd that they won't even release the names of people on committees that help
them decide energy policy or use the cloak of 9/11 "security measures" to
keep everything secret from us that they can? Of course, this secrecy thing
enforced by daddy's being head of the CIA? Or do you think that Americans
who pay taxes don't have a right to know what our government is doing?
You say I "have really been worked over." Can you provide evidence where I
I think it is the American people who have been worked over to believe that
Bush is really leaving no child behind (true, he doesn't leave any
millionaires behind), or that he had real evidence of WMD or that he had
reliable evidence that Saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons.
Every major nation for 10 years has said there were WMDs . No one could
convince them all there own intel was wrong. so yes you are looking for
the boogy man under every rock. It is not possiable to have the kind of
conspiricy you claim, too many people involved to not have any slip ups.
ThunderSnake #9 Warn once, shoot twice
460 in the pkup, 460 on the stand for another pkup
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.