That's what the Democrats said!

[NightTrain]

"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

"We 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 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 an illicit 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 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

 

[jones]

Yep, hes a really bad person and he wants some WMDs.

Ok , just hear me out. Yes those are a bunch of democrats, yes i believe a few in there propose that he has WMDs, but most say *had* or *wants to obtain*

But our last president, Bill clinton put it best:
"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 .

This was* our leader.

On the other hand, the White house said, 2 days before the invasion:
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal weapons of mass destruction"

But..heres the problem

"Both the committee (led by Representative Porter Goss, a Republican and former CIA officer) and Kerr have concluded the intelligence of Iraq's WMDs was based on circumstantial and inferential material and contained many uncertainties."

And the Whitehouse responces, as usual, were rhetoric.

"How did Bush respond to Kay's interim findings? He proclaimed they proved that he had been correct all along. The "interim report," Bush remarked, "said that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program spanned more than two decades. That's what [Kay] said....He's saying Saddam Hussein was a threat, a serious danger."

"Reality check: Bush had said that the main reason to go to war was because Hussein possessed "massive" stockpiles of unconventional weapons and at any moment could hand them off to al Qaeda (with whom Bush claimed Hussein was "dealing"--even though the evidence on that point was and continues to be, at best, sketchy). "

Found this article , respectable source, hes the first person to confront the whitehouse about this.

http://thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=991

 

[eric]

Here is my Problem. We all know he had WMD's, even the UN and its inspectors knew this. Ok, so we can all agree he had them. Now if he no longer possessed theses weapons why not account for where they went? I think it would be foolish to believe that he wanted to bait us into an invasion; it would serve no purpose. I can come up with only two reasons. One, he still had them at the time of the invasion or two, he moved, sold, or otherwise transferred them to another nation, the identity of whom he did not want us to know. To me this makes him a threat either way.

Just a thought.

 

[NightTrain]

These quotes are from the very same people criticizing the President today about the lack of WMDs.

That's the part I find fascinating. Politically motivated posturing, anyone?

 

[jones]

Have you guys ever played the game clue?

 

[NightTrain]

No.

It's far too complex of a game for my feeble mind.

 

[jones]

Originally posted by NightTrain
No.

It's far too complex of a game for my feeble mind.

Hahaha. Nice sacrasm there. Im just suprised no one has a comment for what I just pointed out to you. The WhiteHouse response to everything, cant amount to JACK SQUAT!(as MattFolley would say).

 

[NightTrain]

Well, Jones, you and I have different views as to what constitutes a 'Respectable Source'.

I skimmed through the article, and just to follow up a hunch, I took a look at The Nation's 'About Us'. Contrary to what they advertise, it would appear to me that they are anything but objective when I pulled up some past issues of that fine publication.

It would seem to the casual observer that they hate Bush and everything he stands for. It's entirely possible that I missed something - did I?

IMHO - generally speaking, unless you're unable to find anything else that backs up your argument, it really doesn't help your position to refer to non-mainstream publications / websites with a clear bias one way or another - UNLESS the author has unique qualifications that should be provided as an explanation.

Granted, he's not nearly as rabid as the infamous Bartcop wienie, but he clearly has an agenda similar to our dear friend Molly Ivans - and so does the outfit he contributes / works for.

Just my $0.02. Thoughts?

 

[jones]

The source is irrelevent. Im focusing on what the Administrations responses where.

 

[NightTrain]

The source is irrelevent. Im focusing on what the Administrations responses where.

That's a huge fundamental difference between you and I. A legitimate source to me allows me to go ahead and debate the pros and cons to the subject, with the 'good faith' that I can find supporting facts to back up my views regarding something that was indeed spoken.

An illegitimate source forces me to question the source of the debate, and hence - the accuracy of the statements.

Sorry, we cannot continue this dialogue.

 

[jones]

Buddy, don't try to end this Rush Limbaugh style.
You posted this topic without sources, and I, "In good faith", provided 1 source.

I'm just pointing some shit out, as you did! So why don't you go find out for yourself? Thats your job. Im not going to link your favorite websites.

 

[Bry]

Originally posted by eric
Here is my Problem. We all know he had WMD's, even the UN and its inspectors knew this. Ok, so we can all agree he had them. Now if he no longer possessed theses weapons why not account for where they went? I think it would be foolish to believe that he wanted to bait us into an invasion; it would serve no purpose. I can come up with only two reasons. One, he still had them at the time of the invasion or two, he moved, sold, or otherwise transferred them to another nation, the identity of whom he did not want us to know. To me this makes him a threat either way.

Just a thought.

Good post, eric. I think it is certainly true everyone THOUGHT he had chemical weapons. Bush didn't exactly go out on a limb with that assertion. Clinton before him was just as convinced, and all things considered, I don't know how he would have handled it differently. I AM pretty sure that if it were Clinton and not Bush, it would be Republicans that were all over him. In a way, you can look to England for verification of this. Blair IS the labor party!!! And the people that are criticizing him, except for from his own party, are the conservative right!!!

As for the Nation (NT and Jones), they do have a political agenda. It's no secret, but they do have some good analysts. I think any reference to their articles should be backed at least in part from a source more known for their objectivity, who ever the hell that might be.

 

[eric]

Good point bry. I think all media sources have their own agendas. It is hard to find true objectivity in the mainstream media, but when we turn to other sources then we have the additional problem of reliability. Smaller news services many times just do not have the resources to verify all aspects of their stories. I do believe though that the mainstream media's facts are more than likely correct, it is their commentary that puts a spin on the whole thing. I read and listen to the facts and draw my own conclusions, as I am sure you do.

I also agree that not everthing needs to be a partisan issue. Parties have a knack of pointing the finger at each other when they themselves have plenty of dirty laundry. They do what they can for political gain and this hurts the people in the end, though I do not think it will change any time soon.

As far as Iraq is concerned I just do not think it is wise to rush to judgment before all the facts are in. I think the next 6 months will be an interesting time. We can discuss our opinions as we have, this is healthy for our country, I just think it is too early to start pointing fingers.

 

[Bry]

As a side note, I do pay attention to the "watch dog" groups that do have an agenda, but who's self appointed task is to allert the world when someone does wrong. Another advantage to small or special-interest publications is that they frequently try to appeal to a specific audience, and it is there that you can frequently find information about topics you won't find in the main stream because they aren't trying to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.

In such away, I discoverd that there is currently a popular rebelion in Bolivia in reaction to the perception that the conservative government is selling it's natural resources at a rediculously low price for graft and perks for the ruling class. Also, that during the Clinton Administration, the head of the EPA was sent to a recently abandoned mountain top removal mine in which a mountain to had been pushed into the valleys, creating a good deal of flat space and destroying forever a piece of West Virginia's beautiful natural heritage. That person a speech by way of an inauguration of the new flat park which was touted as strong environmental poilcy on the part of the Clinton administration. Anyone that lives out side of West Virginia might have heard the big promises and thought "how wonderful is our government!" while West Virginians knew they had just lost a mountain.