Reply With Quote
You're right, looks like Iraq was worth it after all.
"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.
"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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], 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.
"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. Cons ution 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 Sens. 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 the 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 seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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 alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (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. "[W]ithout 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 has 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.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
You're right, looks like Iraq was worth it after all.
Here comes Croutons....
We lost military personell in a war, OMG!
Saddam is the best magician since Houdini.
He hid all that WMD , which was an "immediate" mortal threat to the US mainland (ie, it and its means of Iraq-to-USA delivery existed) while the US military was over-flying, satellite scanning, and taking 24x7 pictures of Iraq continuously after the first Gulf war, including with increased intensity after dubya put the US military on war footing in 2002.
And what WMD mass killing did Saddam do after the Gulf War.?
All his WMD stuff was done while he was holding hands with Cheney/Halliburton/Baker/Reagan/Bush in the 80s.
This magical sleight-of-hand is certainly Saddam's lasting legacy.
Any quotes and "evidence" after Nov 2000 are "inoperative", as head/rummy/feith/PNAC/neo- s were certainly already pressuring NatSec to "fixup" the intel to support their grab for Iraqi oil.
Sunni Saddam's overwhelmingly primary enemy was next-door Shiite Iran, NOT the distant USA. Saddam sent extremely primitive, ty rockets into Israel during the Gulf War in 91, but, after his military was destroyed, had sophisticated missiles, warheads, and rockets that could hit the USA in 2003? GMAFB
Last edited by boutons_; 02-12-2007 at 03:44 PM.
way over your head.
Hypocite who now believes what we want them to = good
Politician who is unapologetic and stubbornly refuses to cave to popular opinion = HORRIBLE!
Why do YOU think we get the politicians we do, and why do they act that way?
Let's hope Bush relied on intel that was post 1998. Something tells me Bush used whatever intel that made the case for war.
Who gets to review more intel? The President or Congress? Is it possible that Bush only allowed COngress to see what he wanted them to see? There is at least one piece of intel that Bush only gave one side of the story and not the other that contradicted the same evidence he gave to Congress (soemthing tells me that this was not an isolated incident).. So old these republicans are now using Democrats to justify this unecessary war.. nice try..Bush started it..
In 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in September, Vice President Cheney said the United States now had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States.
Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets. The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.
Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober cer ude in public.
So Bush only gave half the story? but,but,but,but,but the dems said it too....idiot
If you people keep pointing out our lies, you will embolden the enemy.
Based on all of those quotes, and what we know now, I have no doubt that the administration intentionally made the case much stronger than it was.
I also know that Congress had access to alot of information, could have asked for more, and COULD have been more skeptical. They were not. To hear them say it now though, would be impossible.
This is really easy: In 2002, Bush was riding sky-high in the polls, and it was politically expedient for Democrats to go along with his Iraq war plans. That's all there is to it.
We all must remember that karl rove admitted that the GOP is viewed as stronger on national defense and he was going to play on that. Of course Bush was told that this was going to be an easy action with few casualties and that this was a win-win for the GOP. On one hand saddam would be goine and a democracy would be thirving in Iraq and on the other Bush could ride his wartime presidency easily into his second term. We would be greeted as liberators and we would be out in a year curveball said.
and billions of dollars, and goodwill, and trust
you're point was that some dems look like hypocrites. My point was, who cares?
Hypocrisy in politics = O.K.
Got it.
This seriously -- and ignorantly -- overestimates the coverage capabilities of satellite imagery. It's not 24.
Also, the U.S. was not "over-flying" Iraq. Coalition Forces were patrolling a "no-fly zone" demarcation, there were no routine fly-overs of areas between those zones except for probably recon and intelligence gathering.
And, as far as 24x7 pictures of Iraq, continuously, after the first Gulf war; that's not even possible -- if, as it appears -- you're inferring there was 24x7 pictures of every square mile of Iraqi geography, updated second by second. Nevermind the Googleplex of storage capacity in which you'd keep all this imagery, where the are you going to get the human eyeballs to look at it?
You're a ing idiot boutons.
The amound of WMDs Saddam Hussein is suspected to have had could have easily been moved, destroyed, or hidden. Period.
So answer the pre-2000 quotes by Clinton officials and the post-2000 confirmations of those same persons.
Who ever said he was going to use an ICBM?
God damn Bill Clinton for starting this war!
What are you gonna do? Apparently, it makes 2cents (and fellow republicans) feel better about the war in Iraq, so I guess hypocrisy has its merits.
No, goddamn Bill Clinton for standing by while the threat grew to where only military action would resolve it.
didn't happen that way, but if that belief helps you sleep better at night.....more power to you.
Yeah, Bushy was all over that from day one. It was his number one priority for the first eight months of his presidency.
For the quotes, the Repugs and right-wing rabble defense now is "The hated, wimpy, weak-on-NatSec Dems were all wrong too, so we Repugs are no worse than them."
The big difference is the that Repugs madly hyped, promoated, and actually started a bogus war while the Dems didn't.
Credibility of WHIG/PNAC/neo- s is in the toilet, with the absence of ALL the threats WHIG said were there, unfound by UN pre-invasion, unfound by US military post-invasion.
This week, we hear about Feith and Wolfowitz trashing the NSA/CIA for not coming up with the hard evidence to support PNAC's wet dreams of an Iraqi oil grab.
More stories like this will be certainly coming out. "We'v only just begun" to get at the WHIG deceit on pre-war "intelligence".
Add in ALL the other ty lies, like yellowcake/mobile bio-weapons labs/alu tubes/etc, that didn't pan out, it's much easier to believe the WMD NEVER existed in 2002/03 than to believe the proven liars who said they did.
WMD and all the other was just smoke and fog to obscure the real reasons for invading Iraq: getting to the oil and getting dubya re-elected.
Even dubya, as if he were credible, has said, so facilely, shrugging off all his own responsbility, "oops, we had bad intel, not my problem".
The WMD have not been found. The burden of proof is on the WHIG and the Yoni's to come up with the evidence. Good ing luck. I'm waiting ....
And don't even talk about "handing a liberal democracy to Iraq" but that's not the way democracies happen. See my post yesterday "victory is not an option"
Tell me how it did happen then.
'93 WTC Bombing; al Qaeda remained a controlling resident in the Taliban run government of Afghanistan.
Khobar Towers; al Qaeda remained a controlling resident in the Taliban run government of Afghanistan.
'98 Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania; al Qaeda remained a controlling resident in the Taliban run government of Afghanistan. I do believe Osama bin Laden had publicly declared war on the United States at this point, as well.
'00 Attack on the U.S.S. Cole; al Qaeda remained a controlling resident in the Taliban run government of Afghanistan.
Seems to me, he could have invaded Afghanistan on February 26, 1993...and, certainly had cause to do so on several occassions thereafter. So, what's your take?
Yeah, before he became a media darling, that's pretty much what Richard Clarke was saying. The Bush administration place more emphasis on terrorism in the first 8 months than did the Clinton administration in the prior 8 years.
he prolonged it, ever hear of Desert Fox?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
