What did They say?
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. 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 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.
NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD’S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!
Marcus Says: October 9th, 2004 at 6:59 pm
I think it’s very funny that all these idiot liberals think the only reason Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq was for the oil, well here’s something for all you democrats to ponder….Even if that was the real reason Bush wanted to go to Iraq and we did gain control of all the oil production over there, you wouldnt be complaining if gas prices went down to 25 cents a gallon now would you. I dont recall gas prices going down at all, if anything, they’ve greatly increased since we went to Iraq, so all you crazy liberals need to get all that oil crap out of your heads and realize that Saddam needed to be done away with.
Bking Says: October 9th, 2004 at 7:31 pm
Also, all these people who think we are going to war for oil —– need to park their vehicles and stop using oil so they won’t contribute to the war until they come up with some way we can be very independent when it comes to oil.
zack Says: October 11th, 2004 at 7:37 pm
I guess I need to stay away from the facts. When I throw this many FACTS out at once….the liberals run and hide.
Suzanne Katz Says: November 27th, 2004 at 5:28 am
Zack, it is so nice to hear what I believe in, I am so sick of hearing that there were no weapons of concern found, and all the crap I listen to on TV, and from others.
Of course he had the weapons, and or the ability to build them, do people think he is going to keep them in one of his palaces? Or even in his country. How many countries in that area would be more than willing to store this minor little weapons for good old Saddam. Justbecause we have not found them, or the public does not know if we have or have not, does not mean in anyway that there are no weapons.
Listen all of you liberals, how long was it during World War II before the rummors of the death camps for the Jewish people were finally believed to be a possible truth? Way too long, and when the war ending and it all came so clear, who had mud on their faces, The knowledge of these death camps was kept quite until the end.
If such a thing could be kept hidden, from the entire world, what problem are a hidden stash of Weapons of mass destruction?
None what-so-ever. The Desert in that area is a big place, lots of place to bury things, lots of wide open nothing, and I mean nothing, it is like being in the middle of Death valley but with fine ssand, and all you can see for miles and miles is desert, desert, sand and sky, nothing else.
I could hid anything there and no one could ever find it
Thanks Zack, I am sick of try to explain this to people
Hey have a problems, the left half of this site is overlapping my comment box and also your artical, could you please send me a copy of the artical as want to post it on my site
dooz Says: February 6th, 2007 at 5:39 am
1. But you people don’t understand! The Dems didn’t believe all those things; they were setting up the Republicans to look stupid and crooked! (How’s that for paranoia!)
2. But seriously, let’s look at rules of evidence and logic: One cannot say, on the one hand that lack of a “smoking gun” proves there is nothing (WMD) and then say that even though we have NO evidence whatsoever, we KNOW there’s a crime (Bush’s “AWOL”). (Oh, sorry; that would be playing by the rules. What was I thinking?)
nutslikebush Says: February 7th, 2007 at 4:35 am
dooz,
look at the evidence. Clearly Bush launched a war on evidence that experts universally now acknowledge was completely inaccurate. They guy who has his finger on the trigger had better make sure that he is absolutely right before he pulls it because if he is wrong, there will be hell to pay. Bush squeezed the trigger blindly. Not exactly the sort of guy you want to have around triggers.
Kolran Fett Says: February 8th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Yes, but bush didn’t think he was squeezing the trigger blindly. In fact, the entire united states was sitting there urging him to pull the trigger, if fact the CONGRESS VOTED FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ. And bush was working off the same information the congress was so when the congress said they were mislead I get confused. But yes, after we went in people turned against it because U.S. troops were dieing (you think?). I hope you all know that things are clearer in hindsight, a liberal will be the last one to point this out in an argument. You can say BUSH MISLEAD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE all you want, but I would say that the american people mislead bush. We went into a war only to pull out?
Kolran Fett
nutslikebush Says: February 9th, 2007 at 4:45 am
Kolran,
Congress did NOT VOTE FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ - that is blatantly false. Why do the conservative media people get away with that. Congress authorized the president to the military. The military option was supposed to be just one tool, and as always, only under the most dire circumstances (as you can see, when you unleash it, you will probably get an outcome that is different from the one you bargained for.). Bush clearly used the military tool for the wrong job, and botched it. Many of our nation’s wiser voices were speaking against the Iraq invasion before it happened.
The country believed that Iraq was dangerous because that is what the Bush administration shoving down our throats 24/7 and the media just played any game Bush wanted them to play (the media is far too compliant with the administration since 9/11 and gave him endless free passes until very recently. Some are finally starting to do their jobs and put his butt to the fire). It was Bush and the neocon’s spin that filled out heads with false information. We now know that they systematically ignored dozens of efforts by the CIA to warn them that their evidence for WMD was flimsy at best. So don’t drink the neocon cool-aide - the shit’s deadly.
And yes, hindsight can be 20/20, but the Bush administration’s hindsight it 20/400!
nutslikebush Says: February 9th, 2007 at 4:50 am
“congress authorized the president to use military force if necessary” is what I meant to say above.
The Iraq war is Bush’s war. No one else is responsible for it but him. Congress can not order an invasion of a country. You have the history of this war screwed up already and it has only been 5 years. Amnesia (or just an instinct to deceive) abounds, especially among the conservative pundits!
Kolran Says: February 9th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
The thing is, nutslikebush, that the congress was all for it before the war. Everyone was getting the same ‘flimsy’ information from the CIA that said Iraq MIGHT have WMD. You can find quotes from almost anyone within the month after 9/11 that says Iraq might be a threat and it would be wise to deal with it.
The Other Side Says: February 10th, 2007 at 6:32 am
But people knew the dangers of Iraq before they invaded. Why do you think Bush Sr. didn’t invade during the Gulf War? He knew what would happen. Unfortunatly he was right.
Em Says: February 10th, 2007 at 11:54 am
It doesn’t matter that Saddaam Hussein was a dictator; it wasn’t our place to do away with him. If you’re going to argue that, Marcus (”so all you crazy liberals need to get all that oil crap out of your heads and realize that Saddam needed to be done away with.”), I ask you: Where is Operation Darfurian Freedom?
nutslikebush Says: February 10th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Kolran,
If you are following the story about the pre-war intelligence on Iraq, if you read the report by David Kay, the chief of the CIA’s Iraq Inspection Group, if you followed the inspector general’s report which, as we learned yesterday during senate testimony to the senate armed services committee, systematically skewed intelligence reports about Iraq in 2001 and 2002 in an attempting to justify an invasion, you are forced to conclude that the Bush administration mislead our nation into this tragedy in Iraq. The Bush administration was strongly pressuring the intelligence agencies to fashion the intelligence to fit the administration’s theory about Iraq. The theory was wrong, we now know, and their basic approach to information gathering was flawed as well. The Iraq blunder reflects a more fundamental problem with this administration’s approach to information in general (including scientific information, by the way). They place more value on their ideology than on facts - for them all information is to be used in the service of an ideology rather than as a way to adapt and improve one’s understanding of the world through learning (which they call flip-flopping). All ideological thinking is poison to the development and growth of the mind. Ultimately the damage that the Bush administration has done to our country and to the world is not just due to the fact that their ideology itself is flawed, it is due to the fact that commitment to any ideology makes one dangerous to the world and insures that information will be misinterpreted.
nutslikebush Says: February 10th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
and another thing! What we are seeing in the Bush administration and many conservatives is what psychologists of old would have called post 9/11 hysteria. The invasion of Iraq, the suspension of habeas corpus, the detention and torture of people who had no connections to terrorism whatsoever (in case you didn’t know, most of the people in rendition prisons and places like gitmo were put there based on hearsay evidence that came from horribly corrupt Afghan and Pakistani warlords who were paid enormous sums of money for each person that they turned over to US forces - no actual evidence of terrorist involvement was required), NSA wiretaps, and, get this, even the freezing of my wife’s Girl Scout troop bank account by the Department of Homeland Security (the account had $26 in it) are all just psychopathology, hysterical behavior of people who terrorize themselves and the rest of us with their crazy, scared minds.
Don’t be so afraid to be in the world folks! Relax. Meditate. Get therapy before your irrationality drives the rest of us crazy too.
Kolran Fett Says: February 10th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
That’s right, nutslikebush! Nobody can hurt us! We should just relax, not get all stressed out. DID YOU MISS 9/11!!??!! I give bush 5 stars for stopping another terrorist attack. Your attitude reminds me alot of the attitude in America before Pearl Harbor. Oh, and, 3 more words, Quit Watching CNN.
EM’s post also suggests the world view before Pearl Harbor. Isolationism DOESN’T WORK. Did you miss Worl War II. As for the tragedy in Dafur, (I think that is great way to make a sudden subject change and bring poor them feeling into the argument) if we went in there it would just be another reason to go against Bush. Something would go wrong and you would be the first to point fingers at the republicans.
nutslikebush Says: February 11th, 2007 at 2:39 am
In fact, Bush’s response to 9/11 hurt the foundation of our country much more than the attacks did. Why respond to the attacks by killing democracy?
The Other Side Says: February 11th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Going to Darfur is a lot different than going to Iraq. The world agrees that its a genocide that needs changing. Iraq needed faulty information to invade. Stop saying that Democrats would complain to things going wrong when they may not even happen. Is that the reason why we’re not in Darfur? To prevent complaints? There are some things that we need to worry about and there are some things that we need to step back and be careful to get involved in (Iran).
Kolran Fett Says: February 14th, 2007 at 2:19 am
I can completely agree with The Other Side about Iran. The last thing we need is another Iraq (no pun intended). I think it’s just media speculation though, all the high ranking officials deny even thinking about invading Iran. We are already in Iraq, though, and we need to follow through (like what you do while playing baseball). Nutslikebush states “Why respond to the attacks (9-11) by killing democracy? I am highly confused by this, because if Nutslikebush really does think that Iraq was a DEMOCRACY BEFORE WE INVADED, CNN had got him walking backward, blindfolded and drunk while challenging the government at the same time. I know your going to say you were talking about our country, but honestly, nothing changed in my part of the world.
nutslikebush Says: February 14th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Kolran, Perhaps nothing changed for the zombies, but for those of us who value our constitution more than we fear puny little outside groups. al-qaeda are just flees compared to our nation. They are nothing more than minor nuisances and I am not in the least bit afraid of them much less terrorized by them. They pulled off a stupid stunt on 9/11 that nearly destroyed their own organization. Most jihadist groups were furious at bin laden’s group, if you were closely following what they were saying on their web sites just after 9/11. We could have easily have put them out of business. But we made stupid mistakes. The only way that Bin Laden’s ass could be saved was for us to do a stupid thing like invade Iraq and make it appear to the entire arab world that bin laden’s message was right all along - that the US wanted to assert its domination over Arab states. Bush’s actions were perfectly consistent with all of al qaeda’s propaganda and made bin laden look like a prophet to the Arab world. Our invasion of Iraq was the perfect bail out for al qaeda when they had their backs to the wall and turned into the worst imaginable recruiting tool for jihadist movements. I wish that you could understand what I am talking about. But it will require considerable intellectual effort on your part too - I can’t do your thinking or research for you.