Democrats and WMD

[freeandfun1]

Democrats and WMD

(United States weapons inspector Charles Duelfer released his extensive report last week, and confirmed that Saddam Hussein had shut down Iraq’s chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs following the first Iraq war in 1991. His report also showed that Saddam had no stockpiles of WMDs after that year. With that said, it is interesting to look back at how the Democrats, like Bush, lied to the American public, and inflated Saddam’s supposed threat to our national security. The mendacity was undoubtedly universal. Here are a few of the choice quotes.)

"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, February 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, February 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, February 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, February 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. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, October 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), December 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State, November 10, 1999

"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), September 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, September 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, September 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), September 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), October 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), October 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), October 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), October 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), December 8, 2002

“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” -Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) September 4, 2002

“If we wait for the [Iraq] danger to become clear, it could be too late.” -Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del) September 4, 2002

“Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.” -Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) February 5, 2003

"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), January 23. 2003

 

[Merlin1047]

(United States weapons inspector Charles Duelfer released his extensive report last week, and confirmed that Saddam Hussein had shut down Iraq’s chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs following the first Iraq war in 1991. His report also showed that Saddam had no stockpiles of WMDs after that year. With that said, it is interesting to look back at how the Democrats, like Bush, lied to the American public, and inflated Saddam’s supposed threat to our national security. The mendacity was undoubtedly universal. Here are a few of the choice quotes.)

You know, that just makes no sense to me at all. If Saddam did, in fact, have no WMDs after the first Gulf War, then why were inspectors frequently denied acces to some sites or delay for hours or days before they were allowed into others? What about the intercepted communications just before and just after the start of GW II which suggested that high-ranking Iraqis were engaged in hiding equipment?

I know that the point of your thread is that the Clinton administration and Democrats in general had been saying the same thing for years, but it still puzzles me that weapons inspectors would claim that Saddam had discontinued his WMD program. I have seen no proof of that assertion. The only thing the inspectors can point to is that they have found no large stockpiles of WMDs. There could be any number of reasons for that.

One thing they cannot explain away - if Saddam had no WMDs, then why did he continue to thwart the inspectors on a regular basis. If Saddam had nothing to hide, then why the constant confrontations?

There are very few verifiable facts which can be relied upon in this situation.

Fact: Saddam DID posess WMDs after GW I.

Fact: Saddam used toxic agents against his own people.

Fact: No substantial cache of WMDs has been discovered.

So if we can agree that Saddam did posess WMDs, there are only a limited number of conclusions we can logically come to.

1. Saddam destroyed all of his WMDs prior to GW II, but refused to allow inspectors to verify that fact. Highly unlikely.

2. Saddam used his remaining supply of toxic agents in his attacks against the Kurds. Possible, but not probable.

3. Saddam hid his remaining supply of WMDs somewhere in Iraq or transferred them to a neighboring terrorist nation such as Iran or Syria.

The basis for the accusations of the left claiming that George Bush lied is based on the flimsiest of pretexts. But leftists are frequently guilty of selective reasoning. After all, they accuse GW of lying, but they swear that kerry is telling the truth. Can't place much stock in the opinions of those who are the willing and eager dupes of the Democratic party's propoganda machine. Democrats would have made great little nazis. They hate with passion and they swallow the party line with abandon.

 

[Avatar4321]

I know exactly what you mean Merlin. It makes no sense. im certain there are WMDs somewhere. I cant believe Saddam would be stupid enough not to simply prove he dismantled the weapons if he had. if he had then they would have lifted sanctions and he could have restarted at a time when less pressure was on him. It just makes no sense.

I think Bush is wise to concede that we dont have evidence for WMDs right now though. Even if he still believes they existed and im sure he does, conceding the point to the Democrats will keep the main question of, if they exist where are they now question out of the campaign and thats a more costly campaign issue. If Kerry was at all smart he would be conceding that he believed there are WMDs and still does and that President Bush is so incompetant that they may be in the hands of the terrorists. But Kerry is a complete moron. So i think we are safe

And who knows maybe we will have a late october surprise.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Merlin I believe that situation 1 is not highly unlikely and is in fact probably what happened. Saddam bluffed the entire world to ensure his security. As long as everyone thought he had WMD than no one in the ME would bother him. That, to me, is why he kicked out the inspectors. He didn't want everyone to know that he was disarmed. The guy is a megalomaniac and used fear and threats to stay in power.

 

[nakedemperor]

I've been a frequent user of this message board since August, and I swear I must have seen that same long list of Democrats and Republicans saying Saddam had WMDs, from 1991 through 2004, literally 20 or 25 times. In all seriousness, at least 20 times. Its the same point over and over again: either everyone was wrong or everyone was right, and we may never know.

Why do conservatives get off on posting this stuff ad nauseum? How many liberals on this message board actually believe Dubya willfully and knowingly flat-out lied to the American public? I'm of the opinion that they touted and flouted shaky intelligence, but it was intelligence nonetheless-- who cares what Clinton thought back in the 90s? We know Kerry panders re: the war in Iraq, and we know Bush does the same-- do we have to remind ourselves of it 500 times a day?

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I agree NE...everyone believed he had WMD. I personally was a little more skeptical given the reluctance of the rest of the world to act but believed nonetheless.

The PROBLEM was the way he took us to war. I am not and have never been convinced that Bush exhausted all possibilities before going to war.

Can we please stop posting that list?

 

[nakedemperor]

Can we please stop posting that list?

Coming up on election day, not bloody likely, MJ.

 

[Merlin1047]

Coming up on election day, not bloody likely, MJ.

It continues to be an issue as long as kerry and the libs continue to claim the George Bush lied and that he led this country to war on fabrications. You libs rode that horse to death. Now you just get tired of having the facts waved in your face. I think you'll find a distinct lack of sympathy on this point.

You had your turn, you did your worst. Now it's too late to whine - the boomerang is coming back. Get used to it.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Again don't lump NE and I into the generalization you are making about liberals.

When did I ever call Bush a liar on WMD?

 

[nakedemperor]

It continues to be an issue as long as kerry and the libs continue to claim the George Bush lied and that he led this country to war on fabrications. You libs rode that horse to death. Now you just get tired of having the facts waved in your face. I think you'll find a distinct lack of sympathy on this point.

You had your turn, you did your worst. Now it's too late to whine - the boomerang is coming back. Get used to it.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said Bush lied, nor did John Kerry-- he specifically AVOIDED saying Bush lied during the last debate. There's a big difference between misleading and outright bald-face lying. Having the facts waved in my face? I SUPPORTED THE WAR, AND I THINK SADDAM BEING DEPOSED IS A GOOD THING.

You know what Merlin, I AM gettting used to it-- getting used to you putting words in my mouth and making blanket assumptions about me. STOP THAT.

 

[eric]

I never said Bush lied, nor did John Kerry

NE, saying you never stated that, I will agree with, but Kerry, give me a break. He has made it quite clear that this is what he believes. He is playing word games, misleading really means lying, and I think everyone can see this. It is like saying Ken Lay mislead the stockholders.

 

[Flying Duck]

Merlin I believe that situation 1 is not highly unlikely and is in fact probably what happened. Saddam bluffed the entire world to ensure his security. As long as everyone thought he had WMD than no one in the ME would bother him. That, to me, is why he kicked out the inspectors. He didn't want everyone to know that he was disarmed. The guy is a megalomaniac and used fear and threats to stay in power.

According to a recent article in the LA Times, even his top generals thought they had WMDs. This would explain a lot of the protective gear that was found in Iraq despite no WMD caches found to date. All part of the ploy sinc he didn't trust ANYONE.

I think it boils down to 1 of 2 possibilties.

a) He was bluffing and held his cards VERY close as MJ has posited here.

b) They're hidden somewhere in Syria. (or somewhere else)

I sure hope it's a).

Does anyone remember the news story of the mystery ship which left Iraq and was supposedly floating around right before the war? What ever happened to that story? I saw reports of it for four or five days on several major news outlets and then it just disappeared. Urban legend that suckered the press or something real?

 

[Merlin1047]

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said Bush lied, nor did John Kerry-- he specifically AVOIDED saying Bush lied during the last debate. There's a big difference between misleading and outright bald-face lying. Having the facts waved in my face? I SUPPORTED THE WAR, AND I THINK SADDAM BEING DEPOSED IS A GOOD THING.

You know what Merlin, I AM gettting used to it-- getting used to you putting words in my mouth and making blanket assumptions about me. STOP THAT.

My you're humourous when you get pompous. First, you have a nasty little habit of spouting directive statements at people like, "take it elsewhere" etc. I have not said anything because you have not directed your little authoritarian stupidity at me. But you finally made your mistake. Who the hell do you think you're talking to? And what makes you think that any of us have to tolerate your arrogant attitude or your smart mouth? So stuff it, sonny. You don't tell me what to do.

Second, I was talking about Democrats in general. I never mentioned you in specific. If you're sensitive on the subject - what can I say but tough cookies, buster. Deal with it.

 

[nakedemperor]

My you're humourous when you get pompous. First, you have a nasty little habit of spouting directive statements at people like, "take it elsewhere" etc. I have not said anything because you have not directed your little authoritarian stupidity at me. But you finally made your mistake. Who the hell do you think you're talking to? And what makes you think that any of us have to tolerate your arrogant attitude or your smart mouth? So stuff it, sonny. You don't tell me what to do.

Second, I was talking about Democrats in general. I never mentioned you in specific. If you're sensitive on the subject - what can I say but tough cookies, buster. Deal with it.

Speaking of directive statements...

If you were talking about "Democrats in general", fine. But "you libs" includes me. "You'll find a distinct lack of sympathy" sounds like its directed at me, considering its addressing exactly what I was talking about, not to mention including a quote attributed to me. I don't exactly buy that. Plus, how useful is it to make blanket assumptions about democrats "in general" when no democrats of the mind of which you speak are present? Its not exactly being "sensitive" when you call someone out on putting words in their mouth. Its calling for honesty in a medium that demands honesty to be effective, and "I wasn't talking aboutt you, whom I was quoting, and directly addressing" just doesn't cut the mustard in that regard.

 

[Merlin1047]

Speaking of directive statements...

If you were talking about "Democrats in general", fine. But "you libs" includes me. "You'll find a distinct lack of sympathy" sounds like its directed at me, considering its addressing exactly what I was talking about, not to mention including a quote attributed to me. I don't exactly buy that. Plus, how useful is it to make blanket assumptions about democrats "in general" when no democrats of the mind of which you speak are present? Its not exactly being "sensitive" when you call someone out on putting words in their mouth. Its calling for honesty in a medium that demands honesty to be effective, and "I wasn't talking aboutt you, whom I was quoting, and directly addressing" just doesn't cut the mustard in that regard.

A. I've never been accused of being "sensitive". And I'm not likely to acquire that trait any time soon. I pretty much tell it as I see it and let the crumbling cookie bounce where it may. If you have a problem with that, then getting into a discussion with me is probably not a good idea.

B. There is no shortage of liberals who have and continue to make the accusation that George Bush fabricated a pretext for going to war with Iraq. That includes some on this board. I believe that it is fair to make a generalization in this regard about libs because from what I have read, the majority still make that assertion.

C. You are not the arbiter of what "cuts the mustard" or not. You're entitled to your opinion. You should learn to recognize that neither your opinion nor mine is superior to anyone else's around here.

D. Whenever I make a generalization, I am well aware that it does not apply across the board. It's one of those "if the shoe fits. . . " things. If it does not apply to you, then why get your shorts in a knot about it? There are lots of things posted about conservatives which I simply ignore because they don't apply to me.

E. You don't know me, so let me tell you that I'm a grouchy middle-aged bastard with a take-no-prisoners attitude. If you put my comments in that context, it is far less likely that you will be offended by them.

 

[Bonnie]

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said Bush lied, nor did John Kerry-- he specifically AVOIDED saying Bush lied during the last debate. There's a big difference between misleading and outright bald-face lying. Having the facts waved in my face? I SUPPORTED THE WAR, AND I THINK SADDAM BEING DEPOSED IS A GOOD THING.

You know what Merlin, I AM gettting used to it-- getting used to you putting words in my mouth and making blanket assumptions about me. STOP THAT.

NE, You never said it, but the other day Kerry actually called a press conference following the intelligence report that came out to say Bush mislead the American people into war. Additionally you have Kennedy and every other Democrat that can get in front of a mic saying the same thing in lock step........So yeah you better beleive us Conservatives take that very personally when our presdident is being called a liar everyday by just about every Democrat for the last 2 years..Couch the term anyway you want, they are still caling him a liar.

 

[alien21010]

The intelligence that he relied on to take us to war was false. Did he lie purposely? Hopefully not. Are there WMDs... Nope.

... Technically he lied, but he did so with good intentions, so I'd say he was doing what he thought was best.

Are the Iraqis better off now? Yes.

Are we safer? Only time will tell.

 

[YoungChristian]

One thing that I don’t understand about people in general is how quickly they forget history. In 1929, the world first started to learn about a madman that lived overseas and how he was taking over a country. Adolph Hitler started to ascend to popularity and power in Germany through lies, deception, and the use of brute force. Eventually he used the same tactics to dominate almost all of Europe. When leaders are willing to murder their own people for their cause, imagine what they would do to others.
Saddam Hussein rose to power using many of the same methods that Hitler did. Luckily, we had a leader that had the willingness and the power to stop him before it again became too late. Saddam may not yet have had weapons of mass destruction, but could you imagine what the world would have been like if we waited for him to develop them? We still would have ended up going to war, but it would have been too late for millions of people, besides the millions of Iraqis that have already been murdered by him and his regime. The world should have been working together to stop him; but if one country had the power to stop Hitler in his time, do you not think they should have done it? I do not believe that a coalition of the entire world is necessary if a country has the strength and willingness to stop an evil regime before they really get started.
The leadership of George W. Bush has not always been perfect, but I believe he made the right choice to go into Iraq. We must also remember that Abraham Lincoln was a very unpopular president in his time, but is now regarded by many as the greatest president of all time. In time, after the world sees what his leadership has done for us, George W. Bush will be remembered for his courage and strength in a dire situation.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

One thing that should not be forgotten is to be sure to not gloss over the differences between two situations before drawing an analogy.

Saddam was not the head of the largest growing economy to come out of the Depression.

Saddam's military was decimated.

These are just two very important differences between Germany in the past and Iraq of the present.

 

[YoungChristian]

Personally I would rather not wait until Saddam had a new military to kill innocent people with. Iraq and the world are much safer without him in power. If we went by how John Kerry voted, Saddam would be one of the richest and most powerful dictators in the world because he would still control 75 percent of the world's oil supply. Kerry voted against going into Desert Storm even after the UN built a coalition for it.