What the dem candidates said of Saddam and Iraq (he has wmd)

JOHN KERRY: "Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try? & According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons...Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents..." (Oct. 9, 2002) See:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0826-03.htm

during a Floor speech on October 9, 2002, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said, "And we are here today in the year 2002 with an un-inspected four-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.....The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new." http://www.house.gov/mica/issuesiraq2.htm

WESLEY CLARK: "He (Hussein) does have weapons of mass destruction." When asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark responded: "Absolutely." (on CNN, Jan. 18, 2003).

On finding the alleged weapons Clark said: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this." (on CNN, April 2, 2003) See: http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/18/smn.05.html, http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/02/lt.08.html

HOWARD DEAN: "(He and others) have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction." (March 17, 2003) See: http://www.wtv-zone.com/Morgaine_OFaery/HDean4pres/deantrpswar.html

JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: "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." (August 4, 2002) See: http://www.counterpunch.org/wmd05292003.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59538,00.html

JOHN EDWARDS: "We know that he (Hussein) has chemical and biological weapons." (Oct. 10, 2002) See: http://www.senate.gov/(tilda)edwards/statements/20021010_iraq.html

My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we're currently considering.
http://edwards.senate.gov/issues/mil/csis_edwards.html

Risking flame, here's the truth. Leadership affects the conduct of war, but rarely causes it one way or the other. If Al Gore had been elected, he wouldn't have dared not fight Iraq. All the world's major intelligence services thought that Saddam's regime trained international terrorists, murdered its own people by the hundreds of thousands, and had a nuclear program close to fruition. As for the nuclear part, it now looks like everybody was wrong. However, of course, we weren't more wrong than anybody else. War is like that. The enemy is secretive and safety requires action nonetheless.

The US administration a year ago was describing Iraq's WMD programs in terms similar to those used at the time by Jaques Chirac, the Germans, the British, etc., etc. The only difference had to do with who was willing to do something about it.

They all have the same excuse that the Democrats have. They foolishly believed the doctored intelligence data. If they knew then what they, and we all, know now, they would have acted differently.

The problem with all the pro-war people here is that they ignore what we all know now and still retrospectively support a horrible and illegal war. This encourages the war-mongers to do this again if it suits them.

They all have the same excuse that the Democrats have. They foolishly believed the doctored intelligence data.

Doctored? British, US, French, German, Israeli, and Russians intelligence, all "doctored?" How about this? First of all, Saddam was, without dispute, the biggest USER of WMD since World War II. Then in 1998 inspections stopped. Everyone assumed that the pace of WMD, which was now unseen, would have picked up. Otherwise, why did he throw out the inspectors? Any other assumption would have been extremely dangerous. Remember, we were fighting the low level no fly zone war against Saddam for twelve years. For the US/UK to underestimate our enemy would have been the height of foolishness. As for the fact that French and German intelligence agreed about Saddam's programs, this just tells you that objective observers considering what must have been hidden in 1998-2002 come to the same conclusion.

The halfway war of 1992-2002, where we bombed Iraqi military sites every few weeks, killing Iraqi draftees without decisive results, is what was wrong. In an age of terrorism, such continued weakness was irresponsible. Thankfully for the tens of thousands of Iraqis who would have been killed this year in the normal wastage of Saddam's murderous regime, that irresponsible policy is over.

If they knew then what they, and we all, know now, they would have acted differently.

Unlikely. WMD fears were just one of the causes of the war. No war is caused by just one, or two, or three causes. 9/11 meant that we were not going to continue the halfway no fly zone war. Any President had to get whatever international support could be gotten, get whatever US public support could be gotten, and then end the madness of bombing Saddam's forces every few weeks without ever achieving victory.

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.