posted
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"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 | Source
"[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. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One needs to point out that the statement made by Democrats you cite were all made based on "intelligence reports" provided by the Bush, members of his Administration, and or the White House Staff.
Moreover, the Congressional autority that Bush claims was a complete free hand to invade another country at will, was NOT so declared by Congress. The Congress voted to allow Bush the authority to use what means were necessary to stop whatever weapons of mass destruction programs and programs of terrorism relating to Al Queda that were at the disposal of Hussain or would come under his control to use against the US and to do so "only after" it was absolutely certain such programs existed and "every other means of stoping them was exausted"!
Bush ignored the limiting clauses.
So get off this crap that Democrats oked Bush's invasion of an independent Nation that had committed no act of war against the US.Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"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 | Source
"[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. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 |
You were saying.... If memory serves GW wasn't president in 98 or 99... Try again?
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
"If memory serves GW wasn't president in 98 or 99... Try again?"
TRUE!
And it is a fact that Congress was not aaked for permission to engage in war in either of those years, based on any sort of "intellegence" or for any reason! But later, it was asked for such permission by Bush, based on fictions created buy him and his Administration (and apparantly with the help of several congressmen) and granted it "with strict provisions" which Bush ignored.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If memory serves... we did bomb Iraq in 98... so I am sure congress was asked for permission to act in those years... Clinton also said he wasn't sure if we got everything or not. Understandable from the man who blew up an aspirin factory in response to a terrorist attack.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we're comparing administration failures here, let me know. The Bush Administration has a loooooooong list.
Posts: 3243 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By discussing Clinton's failures, you're actually the one that went off topic, RiescoDiQui.
I don't support "liberals" who are for the war.
I do support the growing number of conservatives who are finally speaking out against this unjust war.
Posts: 3243 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said nothing of failure... I posted an article with quotes from popular democrats expressing fear of Iraq's WMD projects and asperations. As I said before... focus that nuclei upon the topic at hand.... trying to spin away from it only shows how beaten you are.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Point is that the same ones yelling about inquiries now were the same ones then declaring that saddam was a "threat" to this country. Point is that the modern communist democratic party is the epidomy of hypocrosy in this country.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Inquiries I don't mind... aslong as they are done without bias or prejudgement... that is a tough one as the ones calling for inquiries are quite biased. Epidomy is the greek latin romanic hebrew chineese word for epitomy.... very complex... leave that one alone.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then you disapprove of the Phase one Senate report.
Excellent!
Now write your Republican Senator and demand a rework and insist this time it will not be a Republican cover-up of the lies the Administration used to justify invading Iraq.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Complex....nah, not if you know how to use a dictionary. Here's the official entries for a couple of entries:
epidomy: The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary.
epitome: Main Entry: epit·o·me Pronunciation: i-'pi-t&-mE Function: noun Etymology: Latin, from Greek epitomE, from epitemnein to cut short, from epi- + temnein to cut -- more at TOME 1 a : a summary of a written work b : a brief presentation or statement of something 2 : a typical or ideal example : EMBODIMENT 3 : brief or miniature form -- usually used with in
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys fail to recognize the truth. The truth is that intelligence on Iraq was a constant. The investigations went on continuously from the first Gulf War to the second and were built upon the intelligence of the past.
Bush and his administration did not create these "fictions" of Iraq. They existed since before he took office and were reinforced by intelligence that took place after he took office by individuals in the intelligence field placed there long before he took office. They were also known and accepted by both Republicans and Democrats before Bush took office.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: You guys fail to recognize the truth.
you are hopeless strider... you'll be saying they were innocent when they get found guilty....
the "intel" you hear on the news is proven crap, and if you bother to do any real research you'll see that people like Judith Miller and others were in it up to their eyeballs too....
i've been presenting the links here for a year, and the truth is? Iran fed this stuff to few operatives and the intel was chosen from a larger set of intel because these guys wanted an excuse to go take iraq, an iran wanted them to do it too... the neo-cons were duped by the ayatolah.... and that is the truth...
Chalabi admitted as much publicly before last years election...follow Chalabi, that IS the key to understanding the truth here...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm not relying on intel from the news. I'm relying on a continuous stream of intel which began immediately after the end of the first Gulf War. This includes UN weapons inspection teams which entered Iraq, inspected many WMD's, inventoried them, marked them for destruction with little tags and reported the findings to the UN. It also includes many public statements by the leaders of the worlds verifying their nations intel on Iraq's WMD programs.
The truth is WMD's did exist, they were documented. Said WMD's were never destroyed in accordance with the cease fire agreement and the UN nations resolutions. There are two instances of WMD's being used against coalition forces since the occupation began.
The truth is the abscence of evidence does not mean the evidence does not exist. It isn't difficult to hide a small stockpile of munitions or a few barrels here and there in a desert nations. They hid a good portion of their airforce in the sand at an airfield and it wasn't found for months after coalition forces occupied that airfield.
The WMD's did exist. The concern should be where are they now.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL, so suddenly the UN didn't matter anymore and we needed to invade Iraq on our own.... more faulty logic on your part....
guess what? the UN reports were altered too...and that is also in the public domain...
keep digging...you'll eventually see how badly you been duped... there was a time when i thought we should invade Iraq too....
the worst part? is that there were a whole lot of greedy individuals that worked together knowing or unknowingly to bring us to this point....
the saddest part of all? the only people standing behind Bush anymore are the religious evangels... faith based politcs is a fools game.... Bush isn't going to be THE ONE.... so move on....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
No faulty logic. The UN said the WND's existed and were there. The UN said Iraq was in violation of its resolutions which had consequences. The UN balked at doing what needed to be done. When a parent threatens a child yet never actually punishes them or even worse starts rewarding them in hopes this will get the child to behave, the child does not learn that the original act was wrong, but that they can get away with it and even get rewarded for it in some instances.
Appeasement never works.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
.....So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word. The inspectors find themselves caught between the Iraqis, who are masters at the weapons-hiding shell game, and the United States, whose intelligence they've found to be circumstantial, outdated or just plain wrong. .... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml
it's all out there....
and it always was...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
what do you think about this revelation? Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed Bombshell revelation from a defector cited by White House and press
2/27/03
On February 24, Newsweek broke what may be the biggest story of the Iraq crisis. In a revelation that "raises questions about whether the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist," the magazine's issue dated March 3 reported that the Iraqi weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995 told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims.
Until now, Gen. Hussein Kamel, who was killed shortly after returning to Iraq in 1996, was best known for his role in exposing Iraq's deceptions about how far its pre-Gulf War biological weapons programs had advanced. But Newsweek's John Barry-- who has covered Iraqi weapons inspections for more than a decade-- obtained the transcript of Kamel's 1995 debriefing by officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.N. inspections team known as UNSCOM.
Inspectors were told "that after the Gulf War, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them," Barry wrote. All that remained ere "hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches" and production molds. The weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished. The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Barry reported, and "a military aide who defected with Kamel... backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks."
But these statements were "hushed up by the U.N. inspectors" in order to "bluff Saddam into disclosing still more."
this is a BS publication.... but there are small hints all over the palce that this is what really happened and the Oil For Food scandal is probably only one of the reasons the intel was destroyed.... a lot of people were making a lot of money off that, so they didn't WANT it to stop......
the truth is stubborn...
people believe what they want to believe... usually for different reasons.....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Yes, we warned them to get out since we did not want them to come to harm. The later inspections were too little, too late. Hussein had already hidden anything he had to hide
It also makes no difference whether Iraq destroyed the weapons or not, they did not do so in the presence of the UN which was a requirement. There was no proof and still is no proof that the weapons were destroyed. While we have been unable to find large stockpiles of WMD's we also have not been able to confirm any site of destruction.
Yet we have had two seperate attacks against coalition forces with WMD's since the occupation began. So it is apparent that WMD's did exist and were not destroyed as claimed.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are dreaming! The UN weapons inspector said repeatedly they could find NO TRACE of illegal weapons or any WMD programs. The balking was done by the US when they constantly tried to undermine the efforts of the UN inspectors.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
The UN documented the WMD's in 1991, inventoried them, put little tags on them. They even took photos of them. Neither the weapons or the tags have turned up.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yet we have had two seperate attacks against coalition forces with WMD's since the occupation began. So it is apparent that WMD's did exist and were not destroyed as claimed.
you are clinging to a turd to try to keep from being flushed..... those "two incidents" were insignificant...
CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq Recommends freeing detainees held for weapons knowledge U.S. SOLDIER LOOKS FOR LOOTERS AT AN AMMUNITION BUNKER IN TIKRIT
Updated: 9:24 p.m. ET April 25, 2005
WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.
Insignificant? According you you, the WMD's didn't exist, they were all destroyed. Obviously they did exist and not all were destroyed and the proof is in the two attacks.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
strider? maybe you could give US a link to something about those "two separate attacks" that shows they were something more than trumped up media reporting... i've never seen any scientific analysis that documented they were what they were purported to be...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Insignificant? According you you, the WMD's didn't exist, they were all destroyed. Obviously they did exist and not all were destroyed and the proof is in the two attacks.
you are once again cognitively deficient.... it's not according to me: it's according to EVERY single branch of the US government involved....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Glassman, Insignificant? According you you, the WMD's didn't exist, they were all destroyed. Obviously they did exist and not all were destroyed and the proof is in the two attacks.
First, what you said lacks sense and credibility and I after looking through this post I still don't see where these 2 attacks were cited using WMD (nuclear or chemical or what?).
This is what I will say about the whole WMD thing.
Saddam is supposidly a lunatic yet, he supposidly had weapons he could use to blow up most of his country or gas half the place, Or at least have a finger on the trigger. The US invades him and he doesn't use them?
Why not, he supposidly is a brutal monster who killed his own people, why wouldn't he use these on the US?
To say that he hid them or moved them doesn't make sense for a crazy man.
Why would he do that? Why wouldn't he use them and kill hundreds of thousands of US troops or isreal or iran?
He was so scared to get caught? Most people who are so "ruthless" don't ft the profile of wanting to hide things because they are scared. (this is the same guy that tried to invade saudi arabi and iran, he wasn't hiding anything!)
Posts: 562 | From: NY | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
logic is the first thing to go when faith takes over...
there was ONE SINGLE sarin shell reported to have been used in an IED... but it was never scientifically verified that i could find... the sarin shell was detonated, and no-one was poisoned by it..it was a feild test that claimed it was sarin and it was widely reported by the media... but never verified... i can find no other "WMD attacks" nor did i ever hear of any...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
the most logical way to deduce that there were no WMD's is to look at the actual behaviour of the forces involved... Quinn points out sadam woulda used 'em if he had 'em; i agree.
ALSO?
our own troops were not deployed in such a way as to protect the KNOWN weapons caches, and many of sadams conventional stuff was/is being used by the insurgency now because our forces were not deployed in such away as to effectively protect them from being looted.... just logical deduction, but sometimes common sense actually works...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
LOL 
