Intelligence source codenamed "Curveball" admits lying about WMD

[Meister]

And one more point on the FACT that the Iraq War Authorization WAS bipartisan. The SENATE also had to provide its assent. And it did.

And it was a MAJORITY of the DIM Senators who voted "aye." 29 outta 50 of em, in fact.

Yep

And it ended up costing Hillary the Presidency

The media cost Hillary the presidency.

 

[BlindBoo]

Wrong. Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization.

'Most'. It was, therefore, a bipartisan effort.

And, for the record, using a large font, in bold, makes you look like an attention seeking whiner.

Congress Authorized Bush to go to war if necessary. It did not order him do do so

It was Bush's call to pull the trigger. It didn't take him long even though mounting evidence said there were no WMDs

Why mess up a chance for a good war?

There were conditions to using the military option. Personally I don't think President Bush met them, but no one in Congress had the balls to stand up and say so.

 

[BlindBoo]

A dishonest quibble from leftwinger.

Congress couldn't possibly "order" the President to go to war. ALL they have ever had the Constitutional authority to do is AUTHORIZE him to use our nation's military might.

In this instance, we got attacked. The President sought authority to go fight terrorists in general. Authority granted. When he asks and they grant, they damn well know that he will use it, so your petty quibble is a difference without a meaningful distinction.

As to Iraq, the authorization from Congress was similarly in response to the Bush Administration's specific request. Again, therefore, before they "authorized," they knew that granting authority was exactly the same as voting TO fight.

Again, your quibble is meaningless double-talk.

Typical of you, Leftwinger.

Quite wrong my friend

It was entirely up to Bush to pull the trigger. He could have changed his mind at any time. He also could have given UN Weapons Inspectors the additional time they requested. Bush pulled the trigger when he did because he suspected the UN Weapons inspectors would report there were no WMDs

There was no rush for Bush to invade when he did....other than to make sure his reason for invading didn't evaporate

Quite wrong. The AUTHORIZATION came from Congress and the President had no ability to pull the trigger on his own without their authorization (absent some exigent circumstances not involved in this matter).

It is true that when they granted him the authority, they left the factual determination as to the triggering event(s) within his purview. And yet, even that much required their assent. And they gave it. And it came with certain other strings attached including (not limited to) the power of the purse strings.

You can try your quibble all day long, Leftwinger, but you remain an abject fail in the process since the actual facts are starkly contrary to your dishonest efforts at spin.

The CiC can order troop into combat without an authorization from Congress.

Specifically the joint resolution says:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.


Iraq was not a threat. The UNSCR 1441 was still in effect as there were still teams of Weapons inspectors in Iraq searching for the WMD. Iraq did not attack us on 9-11, 2001.

 

[BlindBoo]

Your theory might be more valid.... if (and it is a big if).... this was coming from the US. It isn't. Nor is it coming from anyone with a pro-Bush agenda.... because it's from the Guardian newspaper... that's a left wing British paper. They're pretty anti-Bush. So, epic fail on that conspiracy theory.

The German and the Brits knew Curveball was a fraud. From the OP's link:

"Even now, Curveball seems bemused that his lies got as far as they did. He says he thought the game was up by the end of 2000. By that point, the BND had flown to Dubai to interview his former boss at Iraq's military industrial complex, Dr Basil Latif, who had told them that his former underling was a liar.

Several British intelligence officers were present at the meeting with Latif. Their German counterparts left Dubai seeing their prized source in a new light.

According to them, Curveball had claimed that Latif's son, who was then at school in Britain, was a procurer of WMD. That information was easily proven wrong by the British spooks."

I find it very hard to believe that the intellegence groups in both Germany as well as England did not inform our CIA what they found out about Curveballs stories.

It's history.

So this is some left wing attempt to.... do what? What is the purpose of this coming out? Who benefits? Who needs to bury what by dragging this up at this particular time? Who has what to gain?

Just a news organization trying to make a buck.

 

[asterism]

Yep, you could be right.... I've only really gone back as far as Clinton to consider the clandestine service. Personally, I'd like to see us put far more emphasis on that service than we do. Technological advances were prioritized as cheaper than real eyes and ears developing real sources... big, big, big mistake. I wish we had a POTUS who recognized the importance of real people in situ.

Well it's more complicated than that, but the wrong people have been in charge of this strategy for around 30 years or so in my opinion.

Clearly, yea, it is.... but I'm not inclined to go into vast detail and history.... other than to say it was, and remains, a bad decision to rely too much on technology and not having people on the ground developing networks and running intel properly. A lot of the problem, in my opinion, is that CIA Directors are political appointees when they should be above politics. National security is too important to have political game players.

The nature of Humint changed dramatically since the commercialization of the Internet and was therefore a much riskier option. Think about it, today anyone on the planet with a cell phone and a signal can provide information to bust an operative and it'd be pretty easy to set up a network of people in those areas to just hook up a camera and automate collection of snapshots for analysis by facial recognition software. But as I said before, it's still a lot more complicated than that.

 

[asterism]

Congress Authorized Bush to go to war if necessary. It did not order him do do so

It was Bush's call to pull the trigger. It didn't take him long even though mounting evidence said there were no WMDs

Why mess up a chance for a good war?

A dishonest quibble from leftwinger.

Congress couldn't possibly "order" the President to go to war. ALL they have ever had the Constitutional authority to do is AUTHORIZE him to use our nation's military might.

In this instance, we got attacked. The President sought authority to go fight terrorists in general. Authority granted. When he asks and they grant, they damn well know that he will use it, so your petty quibble is a difference without a meaningful distinction.

As to Iraq, the authorization from Congress was similarly in response to the Bush Administration's specific request. Again, therefore, before they "authorized," they knew that granting authority was exactly the same as voting TO fight.

Again, your quibble is meaningless double-talk.

Typical of you, Leftwinger.

Quite wrong my friend

It was entirely up to Bush to pull the trigger. He could have changed his mind at any time. He also could have given UN Weapons Inspectors the additional time they requested. Bush pulled the trigger when he did because he suspected the UN Weapons inspectors would report there were no WMDs

There was no rush for Bush to invade when he did....other than to make sure his reason for invading didn't evaporate

Except for that whole Zarqawi situation, you know the guy who got routed out of his terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and relocated to Iraq. The timing of the invasion makes sense then.

 

[asterism]

Thats odd...

I didn't see Clinton asking to invade Iraq

But wait.. the point was that Bush lied. Ok, now not so much.. anyhoo... don't the words " and we have to use force" pretty much sum it up? Or, was Clinton just blustering, as usual? And yes, I know he didn' invade Irraq. He chose to invade an intern instead.

No....the point is that Bush looked at the same intel that Clinton and the rest of the free world had and decided to invade

The point is that Bush ignored all evidence to the contrary

The point is that Bush ignored the advice of the UN Weapons Inspectors

The point is that Bush began planning the invasion immediately after 9-11 even though Iraq was not involved in the attack

Ok. So? Does Al Qaeda have a network of bases with an oil rich country directly supporting it now? Does Saddam have the Oil For Food program to use as his personal slush fund anymore? Is he still sending checks to the families of suicide bombers? Does Saddam have France and Russia in his back pocket getting rid of the UN sanctions anymore? Does Bin Laden have a means to control Iraq's oil supply anymore?

No? Ok then. Seems WMDs weren't the only threat to the region and the USA.

 

[mdn2000]

SNIP:

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction


"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- 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

read the rest here.
Democrat Quotes on WMD

Yep, people need to understand both parties are at fault for the Iraqi disaster and react accordingly.

Good post.

Actually it was the Democrats under Bill Clinton that led to giving Liberty to Iraq, a disaster, not at all. To label it as such shows lack of knowledge.

Consider, eight years of Bill Clinton gathering intelligence on Iraq, eight years of failed Democrat polices, like intelligence, it was Bill Clinton's intelligence that gave us the U.S. Cole being sunk in Yemen as well as Bill Clinton's CIA that gave us 9/11.

Was it not Boxer, Kerry, and Pelosi who sat on a committee and they all stated the intelligence showed Iraq was producing WMD's, this was during Bill Clinton's presidency.

Yes, Liberal's gave us 9/11 and Iraq yet they want us to beleive that Iraq was nothing but a lie and a disaster. Pure lies.

Far from a disaster, Iraq, if we do not desert Iraq, is about the best thing that has happened in the Middle East since Israel declared independence from England.

 

[asterism]

Man admits to WMD lies that triggered Gulf War (The Guardian)

And he found a President gullible enough to believe him, even when evidence told a different story. Over 5,000 dead US and many more Iraqis. Nearly a Trillion dollars spent on a lie.

Pathetic. Come back when you're ready to address the fact that the previous admin and the Israeli and British intel agencies (among many others) believed there to be WMD's in Iraq.

This nonsense got old years ago.

Using what the Dems said in the 90's is really BS.

Before you go to war, you gather intel to not only justify going to Congress but the American people. There was no intent to go to war with Iraq during the late 90's.
GWB did in fact gather up new intel. Now it was well known that our intelligence community didn't have many feet on the ground. Thus, the goings in and out of intelligence in the building a case by the Bushies. It is documented that the Bushies were not happy with the intelligence they were getting because there was a lack of intelligence to build the case for invasion. The Bushies actually got mad because of this and demanded more intelligence for invading.
An example would be the aluminum tubes for Saddam's alleged nuclear program. One
junior analyst at the C.I.A claimed the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges. Yet our own Department of Energy's top nuclear scientist said the tubes were not capable of enhancing any nuclear program. That opinion was also backed by the IAEA. The Bushies went with the junior analyst's judgment and that what was presented to Congress and the American people.

No intent to go to war with Iraq during the late 90s?

Exercise Intrinsic Action

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

 

[Jarhead]

'Most'. It was, therefore, a bipartisan effort.

And, for the record, using a large font, in bold, makes you look like an attention seeking whiner.

Congress Authorized Bush to go to war if necessary. It did not order him do do so

It was Bush's call to pull the trigger. It didn't take him long even though mounting evidence said there were no WMDs

Why mess up a chance for a good war?

There were conditions to using the military option. Personally I don't think President Bush met them, but no one in Congress had the balls to stand up and say so.

Really?
No one in congress had the balls to say no?
Why? What was their downfall if they said no?

 

[mdn2000]

Congress Authorized Bush to go to war if necessary. It did not order him do do so

It was Bush's call to pull the trigger. It didn't take him long even though mounting evidence said there were no WMDs

Why mess up a chance for a good war?

A dishonest quibble from leftwinger.

Congress couldn't possibly "order" the President to go to war. ALL they have ever had the Constitutional authority to do is AUTHORIZE him to use our nation's military might.

In this instance, we got attacked. The President sought authority to go fight terrorists in general. Authority granted. When he asks and they grant, they damn well know that he will use it, so your petty quibble is a difference without a meaningful distinction.

As to Iraq, the authorization from Congress was similarly in response to the Bush Administration's specific request. Again, therefore, before they "authorized," they knew that granting authority was exactly the same as voting TO fight.

Again, your quibble is meaningless double-talk.

Typical of you, Leftwinger.

Quite wrong my friend

It was entirely up to Bush to pull the trigger. He could have changed his mind at any time. He also could have given UN Weapons Inspectors the additional time they requested. Bush pulled the trigger when he did because he suspected the UN Weapons inspectors would report there were no WMDs

There was no rush for Bush to invade when he did....other than to make sure his reason for invading didn't evaporate

Give the UN Weapons inspectors more time, did they not begin the inspections in the Last Century, did they not begin the inspections before Bill Clinton became president, did the inspections not go on over 8 years, so how many more years should Iraq of had to comply with the terms of first Iraqi war, you know the one Saddam agreed to end and stay in power if Saddam complied with the United Nations terms of surrender.

Yes, just a little more time, a decade was not enough, maybe if only they could of kept inspecting until a Democrat became President.

No rush to attack, who cares if people are being murdered and raped by Saddam Hussein and his sons, there was no rush, we could of waited until the next 9/11, right.

 

[kiwiman127]

A dishonest quibble from leftwinger.

Congress couldn't possibly "order" the President to go to war. ALL they have ever had the Constitutional authority to do is AUTHORIZE him to use our nation's military might.

In this instance, we got attacked. The President sought authority to go fight terrorists in general. Authority granted. When he asks and they grant, they damn well know that he will use it, so your petty quibble is a difference without a meaningful distinction.

As to Iraq, the authorization from Congress was similarly in response to the Bush Administration's specific request. Again, therefore, before they "authorized," they knew that granting authority was exactly the same as voting TO fight.

Again, your quibble is meaningless double-talk.

Typical of you, Leftwinger.

Quite wrong my friend

It was entirely up to Bush to pull the trigger. He could have changed his mind at any time. He also could have given UN Weapons Inspectors the additional time they requested. Bush pulled the trigger when he did because he suspected the UN Weapons inspectors would report there were no WMDs

There was no rush for Bush to invade when he did....other than to make sure his reason for invading didn't evaporate

Except for that whole Zarqawi situation, you know the guy who got routed out of his terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and relocated to Iraq. The timing of the invasion makes sense then.

It seems Zarqawi was a multi-tasker.

Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi

<snip>


In December of 2001 he and a group of about 300 followers slipped out of Afghanistan and crossed into Iran.

Built Sunni Resistance Organization in Iraq
Over the next months, Zarqawi shuttled among Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, the autonomous northern Iraq region of Kurdistan, and southern Iraq's "Sunni triangle" region, collecting fighters and money. His motivations were diverse. For some time, his primary aim was to form an Islamic force that would eventually overthrow Jordan's moderate government. In October of 2002 American diplomat Laurence Foley was killed in Amman, Jordan, reportedly on Zarqawi's orders. But he also anticipated the disorder that would follow a threatened American invasion of Iraq. Working with a separatist northern Iraqi militia, Ansar-al-Islam, he worked to expand his power in that country, and he found new followers among Iraq's Sunni minority.

In a speech at the United Nations in February of 2003, laying out the case for invading Iraq, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell named Zarqawi as a key al-Qaida operative in Iraq, an assertion that probably surprised Zarqawi greatly, inasmuch as his ties with that organization were tenuous at best. Powell also said that Zarqawi was Palestinian, and that he had lost a leg in the Afghanistan bombing, both false statements. After the American-led invasion deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, insurgent Sunni Muslims flocked to Zarqawi's side as he came to southern Iraq and likely lived in the violence-riddled city of Fallujah.

Zarqawi's attention was still concentrated on his homeland of Jordan. He organized a massive plot in 2004 to blow up the buildings that housed Jordan's intelligence service. This included a convoy of truck bombs containing lethal chemicals that could have killed 80,000 people. The plan was disrupted, and in May of 2004 Zarqawi became known to the American public at large when his group released a video showing the beheading of American contractor Nicholas Berg. Zarqawi himself may have been the hooded figure wielding the knife in the video. Numerous less-publicized attacks by Zarqawi's bands of Sunni insurgents increased in intensity, eventually killing an estimated 6,000 Iraqis.

Read more: Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi Biography - life, family, children, name, death, school, mother, young, born, drugs, movie, house, time, year, Used Cemetery for Playground, BecameEmirof Prison Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi Biography - life, family, children, name, death, school, mother, young, born, drugs, movie, house, time, year, Used Cemetery for Playground, BecameEmirof Prison


I glad we got that butcher. It wasn't bin Laden, but it was close.

 

[BlindBoo]

Actually it was the Democrats under Bill Clinton that led to giving Liberty to Iraq, a disaster, not at all. To label it as such shows lack of knowledge.

Consider, eight years of Bill Clinton gathering intelligence on Iraq, eight years of failed Democrat polices, like intelligence, it was Bill Clinton's intelligence that gave us the U.S. Cole being sunk in Yemen as well as Bill Clinton's CIA that gave us 9/11.

Was it not Boxer, Kerry, and Pelosi who sat on a committee and they all stated the intelligence showed Iraq was producing WMD's, this was during Bill Clinton's presidency.

Yes, Liberal's gave us 9/11 and Iraq yet they want us to beleive that Iraq was nothing but a lie and a disaster. Pure lies.

Far from a disaster, Iraq, if we do not desert Iraq, is about the best thing that has happened in the Middle East since Israel declared independence from England.

Actually it was the unholy union of the ACLU and the Republicans that blocked most of Clintons Anti-terrorist bill of 1995. Many of the provision he ask for were implemented after 9-11.

Better check your intel, the USS Cole was not sunk. 17 sailors died in an attack on her and Clinton should have damn well dropped the whole Israeli/Palestine peace BS and taken care of business. But then again Bush had nearly 8 months to do something about the Taliban's guests too. But they opened negociations for the pipeline with the Taliban.

It was President GHW Bush that gave us Iraq. Had he told Saddam in no uncertain terms that we would defend Kuwait as if it were our 51st, Saddam would not have dared invade.

Al Queda gave us 9-11. Not Bush, not Clinton. Americas interventionist policies however can be questioned when the motive of these sick fucks come up.

I think the democracy in Iraq is going to vote for us to leave, post haste.

England quit it's Mandate for Palestine because they were tired of fighting a three way battle. Tired of its' ambassadors being assassinated and tired of its' soldier being kidnaped and killed, yeah they quit. Soon after, the Jewish settlers declared themselves to be an independent state. Then they defended their independence with weapons.

 

[BlindBoo]

Congress Authorized Bush to go to war if necessary. It did not order him do do so

It was Bush's call to pull the trigger. It didn't take him long even though mounting evidence said there were no WMDs

Why mess up a chance for a good war?

There were conditions to using the military option. Personally I don't think President Bush met them, but no one in Congress had the balls to stand up and say so.

Really?
No one in congress had the balls to say no?
Why? What was their downfall if they said no?

No, "so" meaning the President failed to meet the requirements set out in the joint resolution.

 

[KissMy]

Prior to the vote to go to war Bush was told that the Egyptian Intelligence was in direct communication with Saddam, and Saddam said he had "all the information on WMDs.&#8221;

Now why would Saddam say this to Egypt if there were no WMD's?

 

[rightwinger]

A dishonest quibble from leftwinger.

Congress couldn't possibly "order" the President to go to war. ALL they have ever had the Constitutional authority to do is AUTHORIZE him to use our nation's military might.

In this instance, we got attacked. The President sought authority to go fight terrorists in general. Authority granted. When he asks and they grant, they damn well know that he will use it, so your petty quibble is a difference without a meaningful distinction.

As to Iraq, the authorization from Congress was similarly in response to the Bush Administration's specific request. Again, therefore, before they "authorized," they knew that granting authority was exactly the same as voting TO fight.

Again, your quibble is meaningless double-talk.

Typical of you, Leftwinger.

Quite wrong my friend

It was entirely up to Bush to pull the trigger. He could have changed his mind at any time. He also could have given UN Weapons Inspectors the additional time they requested. Bush pulled the trigger when he did because he suspected the UN Weapons inspectors would report there were no WMDs

There was no rush for Bush to invade when he did....other than to make sure his reason for invading didn't evaporate

Give the UN Weapons inspectors more time, did they not begin the inspections in the Last Century, did they not begin the inspections before Bill Clinton became president, did the inspections not go on over 8 years, so how many more years should Iraq of had to comply with the terms of first Iraqi war, you know the one Saddam agreed to end and stay in power if Saddam complied with the United Nations terms of surrender.

Yes, just a little more time, a decade was not enough, maybe if only they could of kept inspecting until a Democrat became President.

No rush to attack, who cares if people are being murdered and raped by Saddam Hussein and his sons, there was no rush, we could of waited until the next 9/11, right.

The UN weapons inspectors were right.....Bush was wrong
Intel was that Saddam was no threat outside his own sphere. To divert the war on terrorism to take out someone who was not a threat cost 4000 American lives

Guess what? Saddam was not involved in 9/11

 

[KissMy]

The UN weapons inspectors were right.....Bush was wrong
Intel was that Saddam was no threat outside his own sphere. To divert the war on terrorism to take out someone who was not a threat cost 4000 American lives

Guess what? Saddam was not involved in 9/11

So what? The UN & the WHO also told JFK, the EPA & all the enviro wackos that DDT was safe & prevents over 500 million illnesses & saves more than 2.7 million lives every single year. But, President Kennedy political decision to force the EPA to back Rachel Carson lies about the science in her book "The Silent Spring" & banned the use of DDT anyway. Kennedy killed over sixty million people.

KENNEDY WAS WRONG!!! - THE HEAD of the EPA LIED & MILLIONS DIED!!!

But hey who cares because we can all sit around do drugs that kill even more millions & sing "Big Yellow Taxi" about that bad old DDT with Joni Mitchell & feel good about killing millions.

 

[bodecea]

SNIP:

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction


"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- 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

read the rest here.
Democrat Quotes on WMD

And yet...they were not quite ready to go to war over possiblities and liars like the Bush Admin did.

 

[bodecea]

SNIP:

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction


"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- 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

read the rest here.
Democrat Quotes on WMD

Yep, people need to understand both parties are at fault for the Iraqi disaster and react accordingly.

Good post.

Actually it was the Democrats under Bill Clinton that led to giving Liberty to Iraq, a disaster, not at all. To label it as such shows lack of knowledge.

Consider, eight years of Bill Clinton gathering intelligence on Iraq, eight years of failed Democrat polices, like intelligence, it was Bill Clinton's intelligence that gave us the U.S. Cole being sunk in Yemen as well as Bill Clinton's CIA that gave us 9/11.

Was it not Boxer, Kerry, and Pelosi who sat on a committee and they all stated the intelligence showed Iraq was producing WMD's, this was during Bill Clinton's presidency.

Yes, Liberal's gave us 9/11 and Iraq yet they want us to beleive that Iraq was nothing but a lie and a disaster. Pure lies.

Far from a disaster, Iraq, if we do not desert Iraq, is about the best thing that has happened in the Middle East since Israel declared independence from England.

Huh?

 

[JimH52]

Man admits to WMD lies that triggered Gulf War (The Guardian)

And he found a President gullible enough to believe him, even when evidence told a different story. Over 5,000 dead US and many more Iraqis. Nearly a Trillion dollars spent on a lie.

No one said stop. No one asked "are we sure".

Why?

Saddam himself was making the claim and keeping the inspectors from properly doing thier jobs.

as the proper link claims, he's a habitual liar. So is he lying then, or is he lying now for the fame?

As the war neared, the inspectors were given full access and they never found anything. Bush ignored it and then had the only rational member of his adminstration go to the UN and repeat the lie. Powell was never the same after that. He knew he had been used for a fool...by a fool. Cheney was beating the drums of war so loudly that no one could stop Bush. I really think DICK cooked the whole thing. Bush was gullible and he knew it.
DICK and Haliburton laughed all the way to the bank.