Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Did Bush really lie about WMD's ?
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Oct 10 08:18:20 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED


Subject: Re-Eval of WMD

"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." S- 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 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 invigorated 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, December 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 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

"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

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM........................... >>





 
Blackstar Posted: Fri Oct 10 22:14:38 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  allow me to play devils advocate for a second.

Saddam seemed to be stalling before the war ensued. We gave him more than a months warning that we were invading and we knew he had chemicle weapons.

What what to stop him from using the time to ship weapons to Syria? What was to stop him from burying the weapons in the desert?

He had more than enough time, and he knew exactly what we were looking for.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Oct 30 12:58:36 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Saddam responsible for WMD confusion
Jonah Goldberg

For weeks Washington has been the site of a colossal game of hot potato over who's to "blame" for the Iraq war. Or, more specifically, who's to blame for the "bad intelligence" over Iraq's as-of-yet-undiscovered stockpiles of WMD.

Before the war, the nearly universal consensus among our intelligence agencies - as well as the agencies of pretty much all of our allies - was that Saddam had large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was probably working on a nuclear program as well.

While the findings from our WMD bloodhound David Kay have been more serious than the mainstream press have generally reported, it's certainly true that the reality isn't matching up to the pre-war predictions - so far.

Since this fact feeds the generally ludicrous "Bush lied" mantra, Senate Republicans on the Select Committee on Intelligence are reportedly preparing a steamy pile of blame for CIA Director George Tenet.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats very much want the blame to be left in a burning bag at the White House's doorstep. That's why - cynics like me think - the Dems are leaping to the defense of Mr. Tenet.

Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, declared, "There is a very, very clear effort being made to blame everything on the intelligence community and steer by all means away from anything that has anything to do with anybody in the administration at higher-up levels or elsewhere."

Might I suggest another candidate for the blame? What about Saddam Hussein?

There are a host of theories as to why we haven't found WMDs in Iraq. Some hold that they are hidden deep in Iraq and will be found eventually. Others suggest they were moved to Syria or perhaps elsewhere at the last minute. Another theory holds that Saddam destroyed them fairly late in his decade-long face-off with the United States and the U.N., but refused to admit it.

Others say Saddam believed he had WMD but really didn't; his staff was too afraid to tell him. And, of course, the "Bush-lied" theorists hold that Bush was the only person in the world who knew that all of the intelligence agencies were wrong about Saddam, but he went to war anyway.

All of these are interesting notions, some clearly more plausible than others. But in a sense they're all irrelevant. No serious person thinks Saddam behaved like a leader with nothing to hide. By Saddam's refusing to comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions, sanctions remained intact. Those sanctions cost the lives of Iraqis and - far more painful to Saddam - they cost him perhaps $100 billion in oil revenue. Why do that if you have nothing to hide?

Look at it this way. Imagine you're a cop. You've chased down a known felon and violent criminal who you have every reason to believe is in possession of a gun. You say, "Put your hands up!" And instead he plays games, keeping his hands behind his back. You say, "Let me see your hands" and he shows you them one at a time, like a little kid playing keep-away. Finally, you say, "Look, if you don't cooperate there are going to be some serious consequences; I'm going to make you cooperate."

Now this was the situation prior to the war. The French and some Democrats wanted to give Iraq one more ultimatum - after dozens of failed ultimatums. The Bush administration said, no, we're through playing these games and, in effect, we searched Saddam by force.

Now that it turns out we can't find the metaphorical gun, opponents of the war - including many Johnny-Come-Latelys like John Edwards and John Kerry, who both voted for the war - say we should have talked more; we should have waited for more back-up from our allies; we shouldn't have done anything until we saw the barrel of the gun aimed at our forehead, and even then we should have made sure the gun was loaded.

Well, I don't buy any of it. There are two kinds of people when it comes to foreign policy after 9-11: those who think we have the luxury to take chances and those who don't.

Whatever we discover in Iraq at the end of the day, one thing has been crystal clear for a decade: Saddam Hussein very much wanted the world to think he had weapons of mass destruction. If our intelligence was uncertain before the war, that made his behavior all the more suspicious and therefore unacceptable.

Maybe he was bluffing; maybe he thought he had WMDs; maybe he really did have them. Who cares? Saddam played games. And we said very clearly that after 9-11 we were in no mood to play games anymore - especially on the issue of WMD because, unlike a gun, by the time you know for sure it's loaded, it's too late to do anything about it.

So if you're looking for someone to blame, why not blame the guy who's actually responsible?


Jonah Goldberg is editor of National Review Online, a TownHall.com member group.




 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]