The Clinton Administration Was "ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN" That Saddam Hussein Had WMDs

[NYcarbineer]

of course it was partisan, so was the obamacare vote---whats your point?

the fact remains that clinton was impeached.

....For lyin' about a blow-job.

​

Under oath, dingleberry, its not the subject of the lie, its that he told it under oath---thats why he was impeached, not for getting a BJ by a 19 year old intern in the oval office of the people's house.

Impeached means indicted. He was indicted, tried, and found not guilty.

 

[healthmyths]

I have a question for those who claim there never any WMD's in Iraq.
What did Saddam use on the Kurds and the Iranians?

Whatever Reagan gave him, I guess...

That's the kind of copout answer I would expect from you.

Well Reagan did give Saddam arms no question. But again you idiots who were obviously NEVER taught anything about the Cold War between the East and West where proxies Like Saddam/POL POT, N Korea etc. were sustained as buffers so that a hot war never came about.
Saddam was valued at the time because he did adhere to Western principles.
But his war with Iran a "proxy war" was the turning point for the West/USA support of Iraq!

The turning point being his blatant invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 Gulf War resulted.
Saddam signed the 1991 Cease Fire and broke it dozens of times, ignored dozens of UN resolutions..

So why are you guys so adamant in Blaming Bush when all Bush did was when SADDAM didn't keep his agreements,
Bush enforced... something Clinton would never do because Clinton had NO principles.

Based ON all the data collected during Clinton administration BUSH BELIEVED like these people Saddam had WMDs, and would use them. And of course the inner circle foreign minister told the British "What stinking WMDs? We don't have no stinking WMDs"!

 

[healthmyths]

More Democrats who supported taking Saddam out!!!

Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002


“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002


If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People ? Version 3.0 | Right Wing News


Ted Kennedy was right "He must be disarmed.” So Teddy and all you above people knocking BUSH for "disarming SADDAM"... How did you propose that was going to happen short of capturing Saddam. How would you idiots captured Saddam?? Drones/???

 

[Mac1958]

.

Quick quiz:

1. How many Commanders in Chief does America have at a time?
2. Who was the Commander in Chief who made the final decision to put us in Iraq?

Okay, spin away.

.

 

[healthmyths]

.

Quick quiz:

1. How many Commanders in Chief does America have at a time?
2. Who was the Commander in Chief who made the final decision to put us in Iraq?

Okay, spin away.

.

And HOW MANY DEmocrats supported the following PUBLIC LAWS that authorized the use of force you dummy???

First Clinton did..
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Public law 105-338 http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
signed The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Public law 105-338 expressed the sense
of congress it should be policy to support efforts to remove from power the
current Iraqi regime.

Congress passes Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)
"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " Introduced as H.J.Res. 114, it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, (68.9% of the house)
the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. (77%) The resolution cited many factors to justify action:

1 * Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons
inspectors
2 * Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat
to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
3 * Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
4 * Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own
people"
5 * Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of
former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones
following the 1991 Gulf War
6 * Members of al-Qaida were "known to be in Iraq"
7 * Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States
terrorist organizations
8 * Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
9 * The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided
or harbored them
10 * The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism

* Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
* Barbara Boxer (D-California)
* Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
* Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
* Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
* Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
* Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
* Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
* Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
* Bob Graham (D-Florida)
* Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
* Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

* Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

* Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
* Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
* Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

32 democrat quotes indicate even before GWB that Saddam was a threat!

"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. 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 ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.



"Between 1999 and 2001, the U.S. and British-led air forces in Iraq dropped 1.3 million pounds of bombs in response to purported violations of the no-fly zones and anti-aircraft fire from Saddam Hussein.

A sweeping attack, conducted in January of 1999, rained down 25 missiles on Iraqi soil, killing civilians. Clinton said the attack was in response to four planes violating the no-fly zones.

Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair authorized air strikes on more than 100 days in 1999, sometimes several times per day. The bombings were ostensibly in response to Hussein�s refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors into the country, though critics alleged the move was aimed at deflecting attention from impeachment.
The Raw Story | Clinton bombing of Iraq far exceeded Bush's in run-up to war; Bush 'spikes of activity' questioned

AND..
"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.
Clinton believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: Portugal PM

Clinton was a locked down ReagaNUT in the Democratic Party. Clinton not only supported wild-eyed military adventurism, he personally signed bills that accelerated the destruction of the well-paid blue collar (middle class) workforce AND that ratty scumball signed the bills that accelerated the degeneration of the financial system.

In return people like Marc Rich paid Clinton nearly a hundred million dollars in ten years. No other human ever made that much money that fast without inventing something or improving a process, yet Slick Clinton did it without creating a single private sector job.

All that notwithstanding, even a filthy lowlife scum like Clinton had enough sense not to INVADE Iraq, which, hilariously, provided the balance against Iran in that godforsaken region. You nutballs own the war that caused legitimate comparisons between the US and 1930s Italy.

I am laughing out loud at that. The nation that re elected the degenerate filth known as The Bush League deserves every bit of the ******* it has got since election day 2004. Including, most hilariously of all, Obama.

Live it up, morons. You own it.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Quick quiz:

1. How many Commanders in Chief does America have at a time?
2. Who was the Commander in Chief who made the final decision to put us in Iraq?

Okay, spin away.

.

And HOW MANY DEmocrats supported the following PUBLIC LAWS that authorized the use of force you dummy???

First Clinton did..
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Public law 105-338 CNN - Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance - December 16, 1998
signed The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Public law 105-338 expressed the sense
of congress it should be policy to support efforts to remove from power the
current Iraqi regime.

Congress passes Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)
"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " Introduced as H.J.Res. 114, it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, (68.9% of the house)
the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. (77%) The resolution cited many factors to justify action:

1 * Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons
inspectors
2 * Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat
to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
3 * Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
4 * Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own
people"
5 * Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of
former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones
following the 1991 Gulf War
6 * Members of al-Qaida were "known to be in Iraq"
7 * Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States
terrorist organizations
8 * Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
9 * The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided
or harbored them
10 * The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism

* Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
* Barbara Boxer (D-California)
* Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
* Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
* Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
* Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
* Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
* Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
* Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
* Bob Graham (D-Florida)
* Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
* Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

* Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

* Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
* Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
* Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)

Did I call it or did I call it?

Spin and diversion, right away from my questions.

Fortunately, I wasn't expecting a straight answer.

.

 

[Billo_Really]

Did I call it or did I call it?

Spin and diversion, right away from my questions.

Fortunately, I wasn't expecting a straight answer.

You called it!

Nothing can change the fact that in March 2003, only one man is responsible for giving the green light to invade and that man was not Bill Clinton.

 

[JimH52]

Why don't you RW loons give it up. The Clinton administration did not invade Iraq with a credit card. W and DICK knew there were no WMD. W wanted to avenge his father's murder plot. We paid billions of dollars so the recovering alcoholic could say, "We got him for you dad!"

 

[Billo_Really]

WERE these people and Clinton LYING?????
BEFORE BUSH about Iraq/WMDs???
Why? Were they warmongers?? Were they after Iraq's oil?
Was this a "Wag the tail" episode deflecting from Monica's blue dress???

Unfortunately, that's not where you start the clock for "regime change" in Iraq.

It starts on January 1, 1998, in a letter from American's own version of al Qaeda terrorists, the PNAC, to the President.

Project for a New American Century (PNAC)—founded by Cheney, Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, and other top neocons—demands President Clinton undertake the "removal of Saddam Hussein's regime."

And on October 31, 1998, bowing to pressure from these American mullahs, Clinton signs the un-Constitutional, Iraq Liberation Act.

Late in 1998, Gen. Anthony Zinni, head of US Central Command, warns Congress a military plan to overthrow Hussein was a "pie in the sky fairy tale".

Gen. Anthony Zinni, head of US Central Command, examines Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi's military plan to overthrow Saddam with 1,000 men. He warns Congress it is "pie in the sky, a fairy tale."

Just one year later, the Clinton Administration's role in "regime change" ends with this little nugget...

Chalabi-connected Iraqi defector "Curveball"—a convicted sex offender and low-level engineer who became the sole source for much of the case that Saddam had WMD, particularly mobile weapons labs—enters Munich seeking a German visa. German intel officers describe his information as highly suspect. US agents never debrief Curveball or perform background check. Nonetheless, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and CIA will pass raw intel on to senior policymakers. [Date the public knew: 11/20/05]

Which means senior officials DID NOT KNOW Hussein had WMD's and the intel at the time, DID NOT LEAD THEM to that conclusion.

History is history, you fuckers can't re-write it!

 

[Billo_Really]

Why don't you RW loons give it up. The Clinton administration did not invade Iraq with a credit card. W and DICK knew there were no WMD. W wanted to avenge his father's murder plot. We paid billions of dollars so the recovering alcoholic could say, "We got him for you dad!"

I respectfully disagree with what W Jr. wanted, although I agree that's probably what he told his dad. I think he wanted to make a name for himself as a "war President", to impress his father, because he's been such a ****-up his whole life.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Why don't you RW loons give it up. The Clinton administration did not invade Iraq with a credit card. W and DICK knew there were no WMD. W wanted to avenge his father's murder plot. We paid billions of dollars so the recovering alcoholic could say, "We got him for you dad!"

I respectfully disagree with what W Jr. wanted, although I agree that's probably what he told his dad. I think he wanted to make a name for himself as a "war President", to impress his father, because he's been such a ****-up his whole life.

Am laughing out loud reading that. Both Junebug and Clinton are classic mama's boys from their feelings of entitlement (Junebug with social position and dope, Clinton with trailer park *****) to their inability to feel remorse.

Junebug invaded Iraq to show his mommy he could penetrate deeper than the old man. It really is that simple.

Karl Rove spotted the hooked up halfwit bumbling through life at the expense of Pap Bush's friends and thought to himself, "If I can make this shit-for-brains inheritor the governor of Tejas, we can both laugh all the way to the white house." And Karl was right.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

The so-called SURGE worked because of $$$$$ - buying off the warring sects.

Seeing that you lost the issue and now concede that Clinton truly believed that Iraq had WMD and was developing more, you now switched to the "Surge" that was successeful so much so, that your savior tried to use the same tactic in Afghanistan and has lost the battle there.
But hey, you just keep digging that hole deeper. Oblamer has shown himself incompetent to conduct the war in Afghanistan, and he's become an albatross around the neck of America's economy. All he wants is more taxation of the masses, and destruction of the American Constitution.

 

[Britfire54]

Did I call it or did I call it?

Spin and diversion, right away from my questions.

Fortunately, I wasn't expecting a straight answer.

You called it!

Nothing can change the fact that in March 2003, only one man is responsible for giving the green light to invade and that man was not Bill Clinton.

I don't imagine we will agree on much, but yes, this is true. It did indeed take a Republican President (i.e meritoriously CONSERVATIVE) to find the integrity to do right by his country, and finally neutralise a long-standing threat. Yes, GW Bush did give the green light for the 2003 Iraq invasion.

He did so, on the back of what was once a pretty much universally held informed belief that Saddam had WMD's.

The Left lacked the necessary backbone to do what had to be done, instead overly-relying on the UN's useless 'efforts' to cover that issue. GW filled in the missing piece of the jigsaw, and took the ACTION long since mandated.

 

[Billo_Really]

I don't imagine we will agree on much, but yes, this is true. It did indeed take a Republican President (i.e meritoriously CONSERVATIVE) to find the integrity to do right by his country,

You don't do this country right by violating Constitutional and international laws.

and finally neutralise a long-standing threat.

If he was a threat, who was he threatening?

And how big of a threat can you possibly be on 9 hours of electricity a day?

Yes, GW Bush did give the green light for the 2003 Iraq invasion.

Thank you.

The ability (and balls) to admit the obvious, is more than I can say about many others on your side aisle.

He did so, on the back of what was once a pretty much universally held informed belief that Saddam had WMD's.

But it wasn't a "universally held belief".

He cherry-picked the intel to make it seem universal, when it wasn't.

The Left lacked the necessary backbone to do what had to be done, instead overly-relying on the UN's useless 'efforts' to cover that issue. GW filled in the missing piece of the jigsaw, and took the ACTION long since mandated.

And that "ACTION", found exactly what the UN found..................NOTHING!

 

[Billo_Really]

Am laughing out loud reading that. Both Junebug and Clinton are classic mama's boys from their feelings of entitlement (Junebug with social position and dope, Clinton with trailer park *****) to their inability to feel remorse.

Junebug invaded Iraq to show his mommy he could penetrate deeper than the old man. It really is that simple.

Karl Rove spotted the hooked up halfwit bumbling through life at the expense of Pap Bush's friends and thought to himself, "If I can make this shit-for-brains inheritor the governor of Tejas, we can both laugh all the way to the white house." And Karl was right.

I just wish we could've given Rove a proper "Thank You!"







As for the Clintons...







Who would've thought?

 

[healthmyths]

I keep finding MORE AND MORE Democrats that supported REMOVAL of SADDAM...
So idiots how do you think you would have REMOVED Saddam...?? Asking "pretty pretty please..Saddam baby!!!"


The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002

“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 – 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” —
Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

“Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

 

[Billo_Really]

I keep finding MORE AND MORE Democrats that supported REMOVAL of SADDAM...

It doesn't matter how many you find, it doesn't take anything away from what Bush did.

So idiots how do you think you would have REMOVED Saddam...?? Asking "pretty pretty please..Saddam baby!!!"

You don't remove him. You leave him alone. He wasn't a big deal.

It's none of our fuckin' business who runs some other sovereign nation.

 

[Dante]

WERE these people and Clinton LYING?????
BEFORE BUSH about Iraq/WMDs???
Why? Were they warmongers?? Were they after Iraq's oil?
Was this a "Wag the tail" episode deflecting from Monica's blue dress???

/////////////// what people believed and what the evidence showed. Bush/Cheney/Blair ignored the evidence

Making a speech at Georgetown University on 23 January 2003, during the build-up to the war with Iraq, Senator John Kerry said:

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

 

[Dante]

Mr Blix, who has since retired to Sweden, said his inspectors found no compelling evidence that Iraq had a hidden arsenal or was blocking the work of the inspectors. He said there had been only small infractions by Iraq.

"We did express ourselves in dry terms but there was no mistake about the content," he said. "One cannot say there was compelling evidence. Iraq was guilty only of small infractions. The government should have re-evaluated its assessment in the light of what the inspectors found.

"We reported consistently that we found no weapons of mass destruction and I carried out inspections at sites given to us by US and British intelligence and not found anything." Blix insists there was no firm weapons evidence | Politics | The Guardian