Posted on 12/15/2011 12:30:38 PM PST by DBCJR
...Tom Brokaw recounted some of the rationale behind why the Bush administration believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the invasion of Iraq, even noting that President Clinton had also believed in the presense of WMD.
Brokaw related evidence that the Iraqi dictator had tried to deceive Iran into believing he possessed WMD, and noted that the people of Iraq lived in "sheer terror" and were afraid to talk to the NBC anchor when he visited the country during Saddam Hussein's reign.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Notice how MSM brings this out WAY after Bush is done and gone. I hate that the bad guys have the microphone.
I don’t think there is a question of whether he had them, but what happened to them. You should see the spin job Al Jazeera is putting on the who thing. One would think it was a garden of eden there before the invasion. Even an Iraqi official was trying to set them straight about how life is better now overall there, but they still kept spinning.
Must be their version of the Democratic Party.
The following are in chronological order from various sources.
In 1982 under Ronald Reagan and during the Iran/Iraq war, the U.S. decided to help Iraq (and Saddam Hussein) win their war with Iran. So in the early 80's, Iraq was our friend. A few years later (late 80's), Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction on his own Kurdish people.
From 1990 to 1991, a U.S. led coalition force of 34 nations (authorized by the U.N.) took on Iraqi forces to liberate Kuwait. This was termed the Gulf War.
From PBS:
At the end of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein and his elite military units were still in power and in possession of huge stockpiles of deadly weapons. In April 1991, the U.N. Security Council created UNSCOM, a special commission to find and dismantle this arsenal. The U.N. imposed economic sanctions on Iraq that would be enforced until the country eliminated all nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capability.Two agencies were charged with the task. UNSCOM would uncover and destroy Iraq's biological- and chemical-weapons and ballistic-missile programs; the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was charged with uncovering and dismantling Iraq's clandestine nuclear program.
From 1991 to 1998 UNSCOM and IAEA carried out numerous inspections in Iraq, but with varying degrees of success.
For the first few years, Iraqi officials failed to disclose much of their special weapons programs to the inspectors. In 1995, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law Kamel Hussein defected. He had been in charge of the bioweapons program and revealed to UNSCOM that there was a vast arsenal of weapons they had failed to uncover, including biological weapons, and described how the Iraqis were hiding them. This was a breakthrough for the inspection teams, and they continued their work until 1998, when Iraq blocked further access and expelled UNSCOM.
There's more here.
One to two years before President George W. Bush won the 2000 election, prominent Democrats made some harsh comments about Iraq, Saddam Hussein and his WMDs.
George W. Bush was elected President in 2000. Near the end of 2001, Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri fabricated a story about Saddams WMD and relayed this story to U.S. Officials. From 2000-2003, the following comments in regards to Saddam Hussein and his WMDs were made by leading Democrats.
"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.
"[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 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 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 Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) 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 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." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
"[W]ithout 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.
According to Fox News in 2006, approximately 500 munitions of sarin gas were found (2003-2006). The declassified report can be found here.
From the above article:
Santorum pointed out that during Wednesday's debate, several Senate Democrats said that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, a claim, he said, that the declassified document proves is untrue. "This is an incredibly, in my mind, significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," he said.
With the Fox news article and the declassified report, it appears going to war with Iraq could be justified for humanitarian reasons alone, plus the fact that approximately 500 munitions were found in Iraq and some WMDs could have been moved.
Is it possible Saddam Hussein was fooled by scientists scared to death of him and the Baath Party? Did Saddam run one of military history's most successful deception operations? If he did the latter, why would he would risk the toppling of his regime, his death or capture, over non-existent WMDs? Considering everything above, one plausible explanation is that WMD stockpiles did in fact exist, but that some were hidden and/or moved to Syria.
Some have said the case for war was not that there were WMDs. Rather, they say the case for war was that Iraq was not complying with the inspections and Saddam might have had WMDs. Also, our colition force allies had a positive belief that Saddam did have WMDs. The fact that Saddam might have had them and was not complying with inspections is good enough reason for the war. Even if everybody knew Saddam had no WMDs, justifying the Iraq war for humanitarian reasons is understandable by some.
According to a 2005 Newsmax article, Moscow moved Iraqi WMD to Syria and Lebanon. From the above article:
Shaw's assertions match the information provided by U.S. military forces that satellite surveillance showed extensive large-vehicle traffic crossing the Syrian border prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.Also: 500 Tons of Uranium Yellowcake Secretly Moved From Iraq to Canada
It is entirely possible that no one lied, the Democrats or the Republicans - at least, not about WMDs. Semi trucks were seen on satellite camera running to Syria up and until time we entered Bagdad. When we got there they were backed up to the Central Bank with pallets of US $100 bills stacked in them (most likely from the Oil for Food Scandal). It is entirely possible that WMDs could have made that same trip and are waiting for us there.
Well duh. Of course Saddam had WMD. Everyone, both GOP and dem, knew it. We’re so damn stupid that we gave him enough time to relocate them.
Tom is right on top of the breaking news isn’t he?
How soon people forget!
On December 16, 1998, on the eve of the scheduled House vote on his impeachment, Bill Clinton launched a surprise bombing attack on Baghdad. As justification for this exploit, he cited the urgent threat that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction posed to America, and the need for immediate action.
Almost immediately, the House Democrats held a caucus and emerged calling for a delay in the impeachment proceedings. House minority leader Dick Gephardt made a statement: “We obviously should pass a resolution by saying that we stand behind the troops. I would hope that we do not take up impeachment until the hostilities have completely ended.”
Conveniently, a delay so near the end of the House term would have caused the vote to be taken up in the next session – when the newly elected House membership would be seated with more Democratic representation, thereby improving Clinton’s chances of dodging impeachment.
The Republicans did, in fact, agree to delay the hearings, but only for a day or two. Amazingly, Clinton ended the bombing raid after only 70 hours — once it became clear that in spite of the brief delay, the vote would still be held in the current session.
Once the bombing stopped, Clinton touted the effectiveness and importance of the mission. As reported by ABC News : “We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and protect that capability, and on his military and security infrastructure,” he said. Defense secretary William Cohen echoed the point: “We estimate that Saddam’s missile program has been set back by at least a year.”
Whether or not one buys Clinton’s assessment of that mission, it is difficult to believe that its timing was so critical that it required commencement virtually at the moment the House was scheduled to vote on the impeachment. I think the most reasonable conclusion is that Clinton cynically deployed US military assets and placed military personnel in harm’s way for purely political reasons.
We don't need to worry about finding Saddam's missing WMD’s - eventually they will find us.
It’s safe for Brokaw to be honest and upfront now. The political coast is clear. Bush is gone.
Brokaw refused to acknowledge this fact while Bush was in office because this might have helped Bush and Brokaw and Co. would never have allowed that. Bush is gone, now Brokaw can talk about the facts as Conservative have long known.
This, of course, is not news. Clinton was on record, wasn’t he? As well as many members of his administration.
I recall using their quotes during the debate...
Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, February 1998: He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, October 2003: When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me 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.
Read on . . .
French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: There is a problem the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right...in having decided Iraq should be disarmed.
President Bill Clinton, December 1998: Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. Clinton, July 2003: [I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in 98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't?t know it because we never got to go back there.
General Wesley Clark, September 2002, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat.Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons.He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't?t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.
Former Vermont governor Howard Dean [D], September 2002: There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. Dean, February 2003: I agree with President Bush he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents, and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given. Dean, March 2003: [Iraq] is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons.
Former Clinton assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation Robert Einhorn, March 2002: How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate, and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously?and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner.
Senator Bob Graham [D-Florida] and others, in a letter to President Bush, December 2001: There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs.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.
Representative Nancy Pelosi [D-Calif.], December 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.
Senator John Rockefeller [D-W. Virginia], ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, October 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.
bfl
Of course, he had them and used a few on his own people. The question of what happened to them is they were quickly shipped out to his neighbors, like Syria. Colin Powell tried to tell us but was poo-pooed by the msm.
Exactly and there was very little shock or awe.
If I didn't believe these peoples' lies back when they said them, why should I start believing them now?
Perhaps we should also believe Hill & Knowlton's lies about the Iraqi army dumping the premature babies out of incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals? (see: How PR Sold the War in the Persian Gulf)
Somebody ask one of the blinded Iranians whether the chemical weapons were fake or real.
As to where they went, do we believe WiliLeaks? If so, they were buried.
As to where they went, do we believe WiliLeaks? If so, they were buried.
We've had dozens of soldiers (EOD and SF) who have been injured by chemical attacks from IED's. There is a ton of info in the SEAL Target Geronimo book. The author also mentions WikiLeaks as including a lot of information on the WMD's and that this had bee purposely ignored by the media.
?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.