...Democrats on 'destructive path' in trade

miamimike says on Jun 12, 2008, 18:56:

"Cheney said Democratic lawmakers"
===============================================================

Aztec--the first name Cheney I would be very suspicious of any claim made by dick "5 deferments" Cheny. Hmmm, if I recall right wasn't he one of the main parties who said "Iraq has WMD beyond doubt,,,That he said it shoud raise your eyebrows immeditely,,,

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." -- Feb. 28, 2008 --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SFJohn says on Jun 12, 2008, 23:55:

I usually try to avoid any kind of disagreement on PBH since it usually ends up with childish name-calling, but I hear this naive and uninformed claim constantly that it was somehow only George Bush and the Republicans who thought that Iraq had WMD's before our (second) invasion of the country.

Anyone paying even a little attention back in 2002 would remember that in addition to the majority of our intelligence people, the intelligence agencies of the UK, Australia, Egypt, Pakistan, Israel, Germany, Russia and others also believed that Iraq had WMD's.

And then of course the leading Democrats in the US also believed (before and after the Bush administration took over) that Iraq still had WMD's. Here are some quotes to refresh everyone's memory:


"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 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:
-- Democratic Senators 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 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 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, Dec 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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e 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 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 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 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


Democrats lied, and people died? Nope, that arguement is just plain stupid.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Jun 13, 2008, 04:01:

Oh come on, my friend mimiamike, don't attack the messenger but rather how about the acuracy in the message.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

rocinante says on Jun 13, 2008, 06:45:

No TLC!

If Cheney wants it, it must somehow benefit him. TLC screws Colombia, thank god the dems don't want it. Uribe and crew MUST know the negative impact the TLC will have on a vast amt of workers and the Colombian economy. Perhaps they are paying lip service to the whole deal and humoring whoever put this deal on the table. Colombia and the US will remain allys with or without the TLC for many other reasons.

To say [by not passing the TLC is causing] "a "tremendous setback" to a close US ally and causing "severe damage to our nation's credibility in the region.""

... is a bit over the top. Is anyone in Colombia rallying for the TLC? Is it talked about on the nightly news? Is it viewed as this mighty savior?

No - because it is not. The rich would like some cheap Gap shirts. There is the single benefit of the TLC for Colombia. In reality the TLC smacks the face of everything Colombia has worked for to protect endure and forge ahead in this hostle world market place.

Colombia doesn't need to open the flood doors for US products (most of which are produced overseas anyway) that would compete with Colombia made products. FOR WHAT?

"World economic indicators point to a democrat winning 2008. It will surely be Obama. Peso 1400 by November" Feb 5, 2008

0 funny, 0 helpful.

sanandressi says on Jun 13, 2008, 11:16:

Bush admitted in January that "Free trade causes American workers to lose thir jobs". I was stunned he admitted it.

Free trade, CBI, NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA means cheaper labor and easier to pollute those that nation's environments. The US economy is now a false economy. Land and housing is real but if you do not manufacture you lose. Ask England about this? England 1850 verses today?

Poor countries GAIN from foreign investment. Colombia has more to gain from free trade but US agricultural products could hurt the small farmer. Uribe however wants the foreign invvestment. Big multi nationals are all to eager to avoid environmental laws and labor laws to make the quick dollar so they run to China and Mexico etc.

American companies used to make toothpaste in Mexico to sell in Latin America. Same with cars etc. American factories produced these goods for US consumption. Now, these American companies shut the factories down here in the US to bring the goods to the US from their Latin and CHINESE factories. How does the US win when you wipe out the working class? It is a double whammy. Export jobs and import people (allowing ILLEGALS in to undercut US workers.) Pollute Peru, China, wherever........

Who gains? The CEO's and the poor countries who get invvestment like China. But what happens to the US long term? More debt? Economic division?

Who is "Free Trade" good for? I have no problem when the US trades equally with Germany, Canada or Europe because those people live well. In China? In Mexico? Howw are the people living? $2 an hour in Mexico? A bowl of rice in China for 10 hours of work? Shut down the blue collar jobs in America where a guy could raise a family and send the kids to college? Good for whom is this so called Free Trade?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

sanandressi says on Jun 13, 2008, 11:24:

Sen. Byron Dorgan D-North Dakota wrote a book called "Take this job and ship it". Read this book if this topic interests you. Your local library might have it. (Probably printed in CHINA!) LOL

I would like to see somebody write a book on what Colombian flowers did to America's rose producers and how US taxpayers helped build Colombia's industry at the expense of that American industry. The State Department usuing US tax dollars to destroy an American product so Wal-mart can gain? Same idea when the United States Air Force gives a jet tanker contract to Airbus Europe over our own Boeing of Seattle and Wichita. Yeah, what is wrong with the United States anyway?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

hongo_joe says on Jun 13, 2008, 12:39:

You have to consider also that American taxpayers have saved money on their flower (etc.) purchases - money that they could spend on other things, or save to give to their ungrateful children or rose farmers, or whatever.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

sloopskipper says on Jun 14, 2008, 04:16:

But the American flower growers were (and probably still are) hogs.

Reaching back into my feeble memory, I suspect that roses in the U.S. were maybe $25-30 per dozen in the late 70s, early 80s.

I could buy them in a market in the Netherlands for a buck or two, and even then the cost/standard of living there was higher than in the U.S. I wired roses a few times to Holland, and they were cheaper, including the wiring and delivery costs, than what I could buy in Pennsylvania.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on Jun 14, 2008, 18:56:

Aztec, I fail to see where I made any attack on you simply by writing "If Cheney said, it should be suspect" Is this untrue?

If they were so concerned with the FTA agreement and the fairness/unfairness of it, why didn't they rectify the imbalance when they first passed this lopsided Andean Trade Pact back in the early 90s(91-92) allowing Col Goods to arrive here Tax Free while ours from the US were subjected to tariffs as high as 35%? And who was the Prez then who OK'd this Pact?

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." -- Feb. 28, 2008 --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on Jun 14, 2008, 19:06:

Looking at the Andean Trade pact of 1991- Bush One(HW Bush) did not insert ONE trade benefit that would have allowed some recipricocity on our products entering Colombia so if you want to place some blame on why US Products(computer, Caterpillar, Oil Industry ect) are at a trade disadvantage, look to the creators of the Original Bill. GW Bush should be looking at his Father for blame,,,Bush one never should have signed the bill unless our Industries were not granted some of the same benefits,,,Fair is fair,,,


In September 1989, President Bush approved an Andean counter-drug initiative that expanded narcotics-related military, economic, law enforcement, and intelligence cooperation for selected Andean countries for the purpose of strengthening their counter-narcotics efforts. At the Cartagena summit in February 1990, President Bush joined Andean presidents from Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru in a commitment to fight drug trafficking through a strategy of mutually reinforcing actions to cut demand and supply. At that summit, the Andean presidents appealed to President Bush to provide new trade opportunities to create legal sources of employment to displace permanently the cocaine economy in their countries. Later, in July 1990, President Bush announced that he was sending to the US Congress the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), designed to fulfill his commitment at the Cartagena summit with Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru, as well as Ecuador.



Key Provisions of the ATPA

This proposal, which was signed into law on December 4, 1991.



http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1584/is_n9_v3/ai_12112583

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." -- Feb. 28, 2008 --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Jun 15, 2008, 06:14:

miamimike, Didn't mean to imply you were attacking me. My reference was to the VP.

I have to keep reminding myself that writtings on the internet can come across in a way not intended.

0 funny, 0 helpful.