Are these all lies too?

[jimnyc]

I saw this post on another board and thought I'd share. Every time WMD are brought up, all the libs and dems call Bush a liar, no WMD have been in Iraq since 1993. Are all these people liars too? Now remember, Bush has been in office since 2000, so some of these quotes are after he took office.

***************************

"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 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 destrution 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 seeking 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. 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 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.

 

[acludem]

This list is interesting....you have only two quotes between 1998-2000. Everything after 2000 is post 9/11, so the information these people are alluding to came from the Bush CIA. Several of the quotes rely on "intelligence information" this information has since been proven to be incorrect. In 1998, Saddam may well have had these weapons, but it looks like sometime between then and 2003, he got rid of them, because we haven't found squat.

 

[Bullypulpit]

...That Dubbyuh's had a woody for Saddam from day one of his administration. And he had to lie through his teeth to get him. Lies are no basis for war, especially a war of agression.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by acludem
This list is interesting....you have only two quotes between 1998-2000

Huh, I count seven.
1. President Clinton Feb 4, 1998
2. President Clinton Feb 17, 1998
3. Madeline Albright Feb 18, 1998
4. Sandy Berger Feb 18, 1998
5. Senators Carl Levin, Tom Dascle, John F. Kerry Oct 9, 1998
6. Nancy Pelosi Dec 16, 1998
7. Madeline Albright Nov 10, 1999

 

[jimnyc]

This list is interesting....you have only two quotes between 1998-2000. Everything after 2000 is post 9/11, so the information these people are alluding to came from the Bush CIA. Several of the quotes rely on "intelligence information" this information has since been proven to be incorrect. In 1998, Saddam may well have had these weapons, but it looks like sometime between then and 2003, he got rid of them, because we haven't found squat.

Bzzzzzzz....Count 'em again!

 

[bamthin]

Show me the quotes where they all agreed to end Hans Blix's inspections and launch a full scale invasion. Remember, Blix said he needed more time.

Show me the quotes where they said to hell with inspections and diplomacy, let's mow down some Iraqis.

-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
Show me the quotes where they all agreed to end Hans Blix's inspections and launch a full scale invasion. Remember, Blix said he needed more time.

Show me the quotes where they said to hell with inspections and diplomacy, let's mow down some Iraqis.

-Bam

They were back in Oct. 2002 when the house and senate both voted in a landslide to give authority to Bush to use any means necessary to remove Saddam if he didn't fully comply.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
They were back in Oct. 2002 when the house and senate both voted in a landslide to give authority to Bush to use any means necessary to remove Saddam if he didn't fully comply.

You just don't get it. Mobilizing the troops outside Iraq was pretty effective and no one was getting killed. The Senate and the House did not declare war on Iraq. I am astounded that you are so deluded. Saddam WAS COOPERATING and the inspections were in process.

-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
You just don't get it. Mobilizing the troops outside Iraq was pretty effective and no one was getting killed. The Senate and the House did not declare war on Iraq. I am astounded that you are so deluded. Saddam WAS COOPERATING and the inspections were in process.

-Bam

As I stated earlier, forces have been mobilized around Iraq since the first Gulf war, did that do anything to help Saddam abide by the resolutions?

Iraq was playing cat and mouse games the whole time, even Blix said so himself in february. They were only playing stall tactics.

You are the delusional fool.

 

[MtnBiker]

Nobody has said the quotes where lies.

 

[DKSuddeth]

If the shells found by the danes do indeed turn out to be remnants of chem weapons then guess what? they weren't lies.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

I love those too. While it might be true that no one on this forum said they were lies, there are those that think that Bush lied about Iraq having WMD, and most of them try to come up with some lame reasons why those quotes aren't lies.

 

[NightTrain]

I haven't found what I'm looking for; Blix himself said they were in material breach. I'll pull it up tomorrow, here's some to get you started.

Originally posted by bamthin
Show me the quotes where they all agreed to end Hans Blix's inspections and launch a full scale invasion. Remember, Blix said he needed more time.

Show me the quotes where they said to hell with inspections and diplomacy, let's mow down some Iraqis.

-Bam

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-12-19-us-iraq_x.htm

But chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix told reporters after briefing the Security Council that omissions in Iraq's report mean "one can't have confidence that there do not remain weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq.

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins012803.asp

Hans Blix's report to the U.N. on the progress of the UNMOVIC inspections of Iraq turned out to be harsher than expected. The pre-report buzz was that it would be ambiguous, report nothing new, and essentially constitute a stepping stone to more inspections. Yet Blix reported some important discrepancies in the Iraqi disarmament effort, particularly 6,500 missing chemical bombs, "several thousands of chemical rockets" unaccounted for, 8,500 liters of wayward anthrax, a variety illegally manufactured, modified, or smuggled delivery systems — in short, everything you need to fight wars Saddam-style. He also described a pattern of Iraqi non-cooperation which itself constituted a violation of U.N. mandates. While Blix did not use the much-anticipated term "material breach," this is exactly what the report describes.

Let's return for a moment to Resolution 1441, the document that activated this phase of the ongoing Iraqi disarmament process (12 years and running at this point) and walk it through. The Security Council opens with the statement that "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions" and offers Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council." Thus from the outset, from the very premise of the instrument under which the UNMOVIC teams began their mission in Iraq, the burden of proof was on the Iraqis. The assumption was not that Iraq was clean until the inspectors uncovered evidence to the contrary; rather, it was up to Iraq to prove that the fabled smoking gun had already been destroyed. Saddam's regime was being given a "final opportunity" to convince the international community he had lived up to the requirement that he disarm. The resolution further stated that "failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations." The Security Council was called upon to "convene immediately upon receipt of a report ... in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security." And the resolution cautions that "in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." When the expression "serious consequences" was drafted last fall, it was universally assumed that this referred to bringing about disarmament by force. It was the démarche President Bush had sought, the promised consequences should Iraq revert to its old habits of "cheat and retreat."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2002/1028res.htm

Reporter: Perhaps there is no person better aware, more aware of these past resolutions, past presidential statements, even in the old UNSCOM and then yourself, would you consider from past decisions this Council has made that Iraq is not only in violation, but in material breach, of its obligations under Security Council resolutions?

Dr. Blix: Well it depends how you define material breach. It is clear that Iraq has not admitted inspectors since 1998, although it is obligatory upon them to do so, specifically by resolution 1284 in 1999.

Dr. El Baradei: This is also not the first time the Security Council declares Iraq to be in material breach. Resolution 707, in fact, declared that Iraq is in material breach because of lack of cooperation. But, I think what Dr. Blix is also saying, we are partnered with the Security Council. Our role is to establish the facts, it is for the Security Council to evaluate the facts and determine whether these facts constitute material breach and what is the next step to be taken by the Council. This is a Council prerogative.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/iraq021219.html

Earlier, Blix spoke to reporters after he delivered a preliminary assessment of Iraq's 12,000-page dossier to the Security Council in New York. He said there were several gaps in the Iraqi declaration.

Blix said that while Iraq had declared that it had produced about 8,500 liters of anthrax, there was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it was limited to 8,500.

"UNSCOM actually calculated that, with the capacity that they had, they could have produced about three times as much, something like 24,000 liters," said Blix.

But while U.N. inspectors had evidence that some of the anthrax had been destroyed, Blix said there was not sufficient evidence to show that all of it had been disposed of. "Hence, there is a question: Is there still some anthrax in Iraq?" he said.

Blix also said he wanted to know why Iraq imported aluminum tubes, which could be used in a nuclear weapons program.

Blix said the Iraqis had failed to provide his office with a complete list of scientists he wanted interviewed. "We do not feel that the Iraqi side has made a serious effort to respond to the request that we made. The lists do not even comprise all those who have been previously listed," in past declarations, Blix said.

09 January 2003
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/03010903.htm

United Nations -- Iraq's failure to answer any of the outstanding questions on its weapons of mass destruction programs or pro-actively cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors "represents a deliberate attempt to deceive and constitutes a further material breach" of U.N. Security Council resolutions, the United States said January 9.

Emerging from a private Security Council meeting with the chief U.N. weapons inspectors, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said that "on the basis of both our own review of Iraq's declaration and the first few weeks of inspections, there is still no evidence Iraq has changed its approach from one of deceit to a genuine attempt to be forthcoming in meeting the council's demand that it disarm."
9.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2003/01/item20030128002326_1.htm

UNITED NATIONS — Iraq is engaged in a "deliberate attempt to deceive" the world and is in "material breach" of the U.N. mandate that it disarm, U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte said Thursday.

Negroponte spoke at a press briefing after U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix said Iraq had violated U.N. sanctions by importing missile engines and raw material for the production of solid missile fuel.

Earlier, chief weapons inspectors Hans Blix told the UN Security Council that Baghdad had only reluctantly complied with its demands.

"Iraq would be making the most profound mistake if it thought it could go on with its gameplaying any longer," Mr Straw told BBC radio. "The time is up for Iraq to comply."

"As of today, according to the reports we have received, Iraq is now in further material breach (of UN Security Council resolution 1441). So it is profoundly serious for Iraq."

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

Why are we having such difficulty in finding weapons or in reaching a confident conclusion that they do not exist or that they once existed but have been removed? Our search efforts are being hindered by six principal factors:

From birth all of Iraq's WMD activities were highly compartmentalized within a regime that ruled and kept its secrets through fear and terror and with deception and denial built into each program;


Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post conflict;


Post-OIF looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily collectable material and forensic evidence concerning Iraq's WMD program. As the report covers in detail, significant elements of this looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with the clear aim of concealing pre-OIF activities of Saddam's regime;


Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them;


Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be small in relation to the total conventional armaments footprint and difficult to near impossible to identify with normal search procedures. It is important to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two car garage;


The environment in Iraq remains far from permissive for our activities, with many Iraqis that we talk to reporting threats and overt acts of intimidation and our own personnel being the subject of threats and attacks. In September alone we have had three attacks on ISG facilities or teams: The ISG base in Irbil was bombed and four staff injured, two very seriously; a two person team had their vehicle blocked by gunmen and only escaped by firing back through their own windshield; and on Wednesday, 24 September, the ISG Headquarters in Baghdad again was subject to mortar attack.

 

[bamthin]

Thanks for the copious amounts of data that don't prove anything.

Saddam was contained with UN weapons inspectors in his country searching it. They weren't finished and were ordered to leave. Saddam said he couldn't produce the massive amounts of chem/bio weapons that the US/UK (or whomever else) was so sure he had. Now, we discover, there is no huge cache of chem/bio weapons and a shitload of people died to discover that.

So, instead of a massive pile of WMD, we have a massive pile of dead bodies.

Isn't this simple paragraph pretty much what happened?


-Bam

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
If the shells found by the danes do indeed turn out to be remnants of chem weapons then guess what? they weren't lies.

30 shells from, and likely before, Gulf War I. Some imminent threat to America...more likley to get tetanus from scratching oneself on the corroded outer casings. Scare me!