Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mylroie: "..the source of the near-universal belief that Iraq had WMD
Iraq News newsletter | 10-25-2005 | Laurie Mylroie

Posted on 10/25/2005 1:01:51 PM PDT by Matchett-PI

From: Laurie Mylroie sam11@erols.com

Iraq News Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:04:26 -0400

Robert Kagan [link below] reminds us of the origin of the view that Iraq retained large quantities of weapons proscribed by UNSCR 687, the formal cease-fire to the 1991 Gulf War.

Following that war, it was long believed that the bulk of Iraq's WMD was destroyed in the month-long bombing campaign that began the U.S.-led assault to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. It was further assumed that the UN weapons inspectors, UNSCOM, were merely mopping up what remained.

But in August 1995, as Iraq was pressing UNSCOM to declare its work done, and even threatening to expel the inspectors, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamil, who had been in charge of Iraq's weapons programs, defected to Jordan. The Iraqis panicked and told Rolf Ekeus, the chairman of UNSCOM, that he should visit Baghdad first, before meeting with Kamil. They were afraid of what Kamil might say and wanted to control the flow of information.

Ekeus played skillfully on the Iraqis' fears, and they acknowledged that all their proscribed programs were larger and more sophisticated than they had previously admitted. Yet all the material they now admitted to having had or produced, they claimed to have destroyed on their own (UNSCR 687 called for UNSCOM to supervise the destruction of such material).

UNSCOM asked the Iraqis to support that claim, whether by providing documents or witnesses who could describe the purported destruction. The Iraqis produced neither and in the fall of 1997, initiated a series of crises that had the effect of undermining support for UNSCOM. A year later, in December 1998, UNSCOM left Iraq in advance of a four day US/UK bombing campaign (Operation Desert Fox), and weapons inspectors never returned until late 2002.

This is the source of the near-universal belief that Iraq had such weapons--not shadowy defectors, nor rogue reporters. Moreover, the possibility remains that Iraq did have such weapons (or their immediate precursors) and destroyed, hid, and/or moved them on the eve of this war and that the subsequent investigation simply has not been done all that well. ~ Laurie Mylroie

It Wasn't Just Miller's Story --- By Robert Kagan Tuesday, October 25, 2005; A21

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401405.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Excerpts:

The Judith Miller-Valerie Plame-Scooter Libby imbroglio is being reduced to a simple narrative about the origins of the Iraq war. ...."

There is a big problem with this simple narrative. It is that the Times, along with The Post and other news organizations, ran many alarming stories about Iraq's weapons programs before the election of George W. Bush. A quick search through the Times archives before 2001 produces such headlines as "Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say"(November 1998), "U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan"(August 1998), "Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort" (February 2000), "Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration" (February 2000), "Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program" (July 2000). ..."

Many such stories appeared before and after the Clinton administration bombed Iraq for four days in late 1998 in what it insisted was an effort to degrade Iraqi weapons programs. ..."

This was the consensus before Bush took office, before Scooter Libby assumed his post and before Judith Miller did most of the reporting for which she is now, uniquely, criticized. It was based on reporting by a large of number of journalists who in turn based their stories on the judgments of international intelligence analysts, Clinton officials and weapons inspectors. As we wage what the Times now calls "the continuing battle over the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq," we will have to grapple with the stubborn fact that the underlying rationale for the war was already in place when this administration arrived. ..."


TOPICS: War on Terror
KEYWORDS: cialeak; d; iraq; judithmiller; kagan; lauriemylroie; mylroie; plamegate; unscom; wmd; wp
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1508905/posts?page=34#34

1 posted on 10/25/2005 1:01:52 PM PDT by Matchett-PI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Glad to see Laurie Mylroie's article. Thanks. Most of those WMD's ended up in Syria. What else was in that endless stream of trucks heading for Syria as the war began?


2 posted on 10/25/2005 1:04:14 PM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Bless you! I was trying to think of her name this weekend, when in a discussion with a good soul who was drowning in the brackish MSM waters of spin that there were no WMDs.


3 posted on 10/25/2005 1:05:29 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Bump.


4 posted on 10/25/2005 1:09:26 PM PDT by Rocko (this post kills fascists...and communists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
It is a KNOWN fact that Saddam and Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. They never used them. They would never, ever kill innocent people with WMD. They did not have the technology. Bush took us to war on lies. Bush made it up. Saddam is a good guy. I know all this because the MSM and socialist democrats tell us so. You DO BELIEVE the MSM and socialist democrats don't you???? /sarcasm still flaming on.
5 posted on 10/25/2005 1:15:24 PM PDT by RetiredArmy (Socialist Dems, the MSM and Islamic murderers, ALL threats to the Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hershey
What else was in that endless stream of trucks heading for Syria as the war began?

Saddam's money??

6 posted on 10/25/2005 1:16:15 PM PDT by CedarDave (Life was simplier before Cindy showed up in Crawford.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

BTTT


7 posted on 10/25/2005 1:17:15 PM PDT by JulieRNR21 (I BELIEVE CONGRESSMAN WELDON !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

You could toast marshmallows off that sarcasm.


8 posted on 10/25/2005 1:17:43 PM PDT by libertarianPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

So, its best stated that if anyone lied about WMD risk that list has to start with the Iraqi regime, the UN and then the lame stream media, the Clinton Administration and only after that do we begin to add in the deficiencies of the intel services and any conclusions reached by the Bush Administration.


9 posted on 10/25/2005 1:17:52 PM PDT by KC Burke (Men of intemperate minds can never be free....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
the Times, along with The Post and other news organizations, ran many alarming stories about Iraq's weapons programs before the election of George W. Bush. A quick search through the Times archives before 2001 produces such headlines as "Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say"(November 1998), "U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan"(August 1998), "Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort" (February 2000), "Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration" (February 2000), "Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program" (July 2000). ..."
Rush ran with this story today.

10 posted on 10/25/2005 1:20:42 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

If Bush knew there were no WMDs and he lied and said there were just to take us to war for political gain, wouldn't he know that he would be found out?
Why not wait to start the war closer to election time? This way the fact there were no WMDs would not come out until after the election.
Why not just have Rove plant the WMDs over there?


11 posted on 10/25/2005 1:29:24 PM PDT by threeleftsmakearight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hershey
"What else was in that endless stream of trucks heading for Syria as the war began?"

Weren't there also RUSSIANS in the trucks?

12 posted on 10/25/2005 1:39:16 PM PDT by RasterMaster (Proud Member of the Water Bucket Brigade - Merry MOOSEMUSS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Bump to the top.


13 posted on 10/25/2005 1:41:20 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Do you have a working link for this?


14 posted on 10/25/2005 1:45:52 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

I wonder if the UN oil-for-food scandal has something to do with all this also. The embargo really didn't stop France, Germany, and Russia from making a profit smuggling arms to Saddam. Saddam had his public relations coup (US killing children.) UN folks and Saddam both making money hand over fist. The gravy train might end if the WMD were known to be destroyed.

I suspect Saddam had a deeper game going. He was continuing work, mostly through France. There were barrels and barrels of precursor finds with French labelling.


15 posted on 10/25/2005 1:56:53 PM PDT by Ingtar (Understanding is a three-edged sword : your side, my side, and the truth in between ." -- Kosh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1508986/posts


16 posted on 10/25/2005 2:01:25 PM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

ping


17 posted on 10/25/2005 2:04:19 PM PDT by christie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar
Maybe if we actually had an American press, with actual American investigative reporters we would know more.

As it stands now, we only have opposition researchers for the DNC and leftwing Europe.
18 posted on 10/25/2005 2:08:46 PM PDT by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Laurie Mylroie is an expert on Issues related to Iraq, al Qaida and their relationship. I'm sorry that she hasn't written anything for some time. I always looked for her and Edward Jay Epstein's columns. Epstein was focusing intently on the Prague Connection and then dropped for his new book on Hollywood. It's a shame he hasn't picked up Atta, Prague and Able Danger.

Another person who emphatically believes that Iraq and WMDs and moved them to Syria en route possibly to the Bekaa Valley is recently retired USMC Gernal Michael P 'Rifle' Delong.

Ooh-rah!
IJH


19 posted on 10/25/2005 2:20:10 PM PDT by Intellectual Jarhead (Iraq, Mylroie and WMD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
There are so many quotes from the Clinton Administration saying that Saddam had WMD and was a threat to the world it's ridiculously easy to find them. I still can't figure out why libs and the MSM don't feel that "he lied" [/sarc]. Here are a few nuggets:

On November 16 (1997), Cohen made a widely reported appearance on ABC's This Week in which he placed a five-pound bag of sugar on the table and stated that that amount of anthrax "would destroy at least half the population" of Washington, D.C. Cohen explained how fast a person could die once exposed to anthrax. "One of the things we found with anthrax is that one breath and you are likely to face death within five days. One small particle of anthrax would produce death within five days." And he noted that Iraq "has had enormous amounts" of anthrax. Cohen also spoke on the extreme lethality of VX nerve agent: "One drop [of VX] from this particular thimble as such -- one single drop will kill you within a few minutes." And he reminded the world that Saddam may have enough VX to kill "millions, millions, if it were properly dispersed and through aerosol mechanisms."

In Sacramento, November 15 (1997), Clinton painted a bleak future if nations did not cooperate against "organized forces of destruction," telling the audience that only a small amount of "nuclear cake put in a bomb would do ten times as much damage as the Oklahoma City bomb did." Effectively dealing with proliferation and not letting weapons "fall into the wrong hands" is "fundamentally what is stake in the stand off we're having in Iraq today."

He asked Americans to not to view the current crisis as a "replay" of the Gulf War in 1991. Instead, "think about it in terms of the innocent Japanese people that died in the subway when the sarin gas was released [by the religious cult Aum Shinrikyo in 1995]; and how important it is for every responsible government in the world to do everything that can possibly be done not to let big stores of chemical or biological weapons fall into the wrong hands, not to let irresponsible people develop the capacity to put them in warheads on missiles or put them in briefcases that could be exploded in small rooms. And I say this not to frighten you."

On November 25 (1997), the Pentagon released "Proliferation: Threat and Response." A few things stand out in the report. In the section on Iraq, the word "terrorism" (in any form) is not mentioned. It is, though, cited in the sections on Libya and Iran. The report stated that Iraq "probably has hidden" chemical munitions, "may retain … some missile warheads" from its old biological program, and could jump-start production of chemical and biological weapons "should UN sanctions and monitoring end or be substantially reduced."

Cohen began his press briefing on the Pentagon report by showing a picture of a Kurdish mother and her child who had been gassed by Saddam's army. A bit later, standing besides the gruesome image, he described death on a mass scale. "One drop [of VX nerve agent] on your finger will produce death in a matter of just a few moments. Now the UN believes that Saddam may have produced as much as 200 tons of VX, and this would, of course, be theoretically enough to kill every man, woman and child on the face of the earth." He then sketched an image of a massive chemical attack on an American city. Recalling Saddam's use of poison gas and the sarin attack in Tokyo, Cohen warned that "we face a clear and present danger today" and reminded people that the "terrorist who bombed the World Trade Center in New York had in mind the destruction and deaths of some 250,000 people that they were determined to kill."

Asked whether Iraq had moved "any of his programs underground into these hardened facilities," Cohen responded that he didn't know whether Saddam had "moved these chemicals or biological agents and materials --- not only the agents themselves, but documentation .... So we don't know whether they've moved them into hardened shelters or underground bunkers." He spoke of Iraqi weapons as fact, not a probability or likelihood"

A few days later, on February 7 (1998), Clinton, joined by Prime Minister Blair, devoted his Saturday radio address to Iraq. Noting the two were speaking from the same room where FDR and Churchill "charted our path victory in World War II," Clinton told Americans that we now face "a new nexus of threats, none more dangerous than chemical and biological weapons, and the terrorists, criminals and outlaw states that seek to acquire them." He warned that "Iraq continues to conceal chemical and biological weapon[s]," "has the "missiles that can deliver them" and "has the capacity to quickly restart production of these weapons."

And it just goes on and on... Link to Project for the American Century Site

20 posted on 10/25/2005 2:22:05 PM PDT by SpitfyrAce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave; Matchett-PI; All

Does ANYONE know what happened to the three circling ships we were monitoring in the Indian ociean before the start of the war??


21 posted on 10/25/2005 2:29:17 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SpitfyrAce

Yeah...these people are frauds. Heck, it was just days after Bush's 2001 Inauguration that the NY Times, with the help of William Cohen (Clinton's Sec. of Defense) were writing stories "warning" the incoming Bush administration of the danger we faced from a rearming Saddam Hussein. Under the 1/22/01 headlines, the NYT's reported via Cohen that "Iraq Resumes WMD Activities," as their own reporters, Eric Schmitt and Steven Meyers, reported that "Iraq Rebuilt Weapons Factories."

These stories concluded that:

"While officials have previously disclosed that Iraq had rebuilt missile plants destroyed in the 1998 strikes, the Jan. 10 report released by Mr. Cohen was the first public acknowledgment of the resumption of work at suspected chemical and biological plants....Some of Iraq's facilities could be converted fairly quickly to production of chemical weapons," the report said at one point. It went on to warn, "Iraq retains the expertise, once a decision is made, to resume chemical agent production within a few weeks or months, depending on the type of agent."

Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed, "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far:"

"Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer."

On January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden:

"Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad."

NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report:

"Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan." According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

By mid-February 1999, journalists did not even feel the need to qualify the claims about WMDs and an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. An Associated Press dispatch that ran in the Washington Post ended this way:

"The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers." Where did journalists get the idea that Saddam and bin Laden might be coordinating efforts? Among other places, from high-ranking Clinton administration officials. In the spring of 1998--well before the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa--the Clinton administration indicted Osama bin Laden. The indictment, unsealed a few months later, prominently cited al Qaeda's agreement to 'collaborate with Iraq and Saddam on weapons of mass destruction'..."

What makes this even more relevant WRT Wilson and his Niger claims is that Saddam already possessed 500 tons of Uranium long before we even went into Iraq. Not only has the media ignored this story, they didn't seem to have any questions about where Saddam may have procured it. The fact that they took Wilson's claims at face value, when he even acknowledged that Niger was approached by Saddam's reps in 1999 to seal a deal, indicates they have no need for the truth. The fact that Niger would deny any deal with Saddam seems to only come as a surprise to Wilson (and his media brethren)...since such an admission would've been a clear violation of International Law and UN sanctions.

From the Kay and Duelfer(sp) Reports on WMDs to the Butler and Senate Intel Reports (discrediting Joe Wilson)....and even the 9/11 Commission Report, the media has either ignored or totally misprepresented the facts in each of these investigations to advance the Democrats anti-Bush agenda. And they have played these political games at the cost of endangering our soldiers lives and the lives of each and every one of us. This is no longer just a biased media; they have become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat party, using the power of the press and their 1st Amendment privledges (and Shield Laws) to advance an agenda that we couldn't legally do without violating some law.


22 posted on 10/25/2005 2:33:22 PM PDT by cwb (Liberalism is the opiate of the *asses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI; All
It wasn't just MIller's story: Robert Kagan's article as talked about by Limbaugh today...
23 posted on 10/25/2005 2:42:49 PM PDT by Molly Pitcher (We are Americans...the sons and daughters of liberty...*.from FReeper the Real fifi*))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sidebar Moderator

I don't have a working link to this because the source was her email news letter she sends me. All I have is her email address: Laurie Mylroie at: sam11@erols.com I included that in my post.


24 posted on 10/25/2005 2:42:54 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cwb
Absolutely stunning! This has to be the best line:

"The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers." Where did journalists get the idea that Saddam and bin Laden might be coordinating efforts? Among other places, from high-ranking Clinton administration officials. In the spring of 1998--well before the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa--the Clinton administration indicted Osama bin Laden. The indictment, unsealed a few months later, prominently cited al Qaeda's agreement to 'collaborate with Iraq and Saddam on weapons of mass destruction'..."

I can't seem to find a link, but wasn't Zarqawi treated in Baghdad before the Iraq war because of wounds he sustained fighting us in Afghanistan?

25 posted on 10/25/2005 2:46:25 PM PDT by SpitfyrAce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SpitfyrAce

Yes, AZ was treated in one of Saddam's sons hospitals after he was injured in Afghanistan and well before we even went to war with Iraq. In fact, I think Powell even included this in his UN speech. Also remember that AZ was meeting (and helping finance) Ansar Al-Islam in N. Iraq, which started getting set-up before 9/11 even happened. People forget that AZ was a top Lt. in one of Bin Laden's Afghanistan's terrorist camps and he was trying to establish this AQ affiliate with Ansar before we even went into Iraq.

Here's a copy of the UBL indictment:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html


26 posted on 10/25/2005 2:59:42 PM PDT by cwb (Liberalism is the opiate of the *asses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: threeleftsmakearight
Frankly, the easiest way to debunk this stale, stupid lie, is to think just a bit further: If Bush lied about WMD's and we didn't know one way or another, what did and is stopping Bush and his government lackeys from lying NOW? They could announce all kinds of phony finds, and substitute very convincing chemical and biological arms for proof. But, if he initially lied, he would have continued to lie, he would have had to, like someone else we know... like... oh, maybe... BILL CLINTON?
27 posted on 10/25/2005 3:03:32 PM PDT by Richard Axtell (what to believe? good question...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cwb

It should also be noted for those libs who like to say that AZ and Ansar were a threat to Saddam...and that he would not work with them; The Clinton era indictment states this:

"Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development."


28 posted on 10/25/2005 3:05:49 PM PDT by cwb (Liberalism is the opiate of the *asses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: hershey; All

I agree with your assessment .. and some of it went to Russia - who has admitted they did retrieve some WMD - what quantity or substance - I've never been able to find out.

However, I love this statement: "the underlying rationale for the war was already in place when this [Bush] administration arrived".

Rush talked at length about this today. He was probably reading from this article. Rush kept repeating that the media wants the world to believe that nobody was talking about WMD until Bush arrived in office. As these articles prove, the whole world was talking about it.


29 posted on 10/25/2005 3:13:10 PM PDT by CyberAnt (I BELIEVE CONGRESSMAN WELDON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

Yrs: "What else was in that endless stream of trucks heading for Syria as the war began?
Saddam's money??"





Yes and those trucks were mostly Russian, carrying goods
from France, Russia, and Germany, AND they did not want the world to know thay had traded ARMS for OIL, as well as WMD research items! The egg on their faces would have resulted in UN sanctions against them.

That is why Saddam Hussein did NOT want UN weapons inspectors in certain sites. Because of the slow build up to the war, and the ultimatum process, the Iraqi's Russians, French and Germans managed to get most of it out. What was not removed was destroyed befor US forces could secure it.

Remember that dozens of unused late generation French Surface to Air missles greeted US Marines when they took Bagdad Airport. That was only the tip of the iceberg, and they were supposed to have been used to slow down the US to allow for more time to get out WMD research materials and equipment. The French Russian and Germans didn't need more time, and the anti aircraft missles were left unfired, and the Iraqui army was smart enough NOT to use them.

Our President knows all this, and the reason he can't tell us is that he needs to maintain relations with France, Russia, Germany and the United Nations, or else he would be facing our former allies with demands to explain why they had perpetrated " Acts of War" against the UN and the United States of America. Also remember that France, Russia , and Germany did everything they could to slow the USA down in moving to a war footing in Iraq. It worked.


30 posted on 10/25/2005 3:41:07 PM PDT by Candor7 (Into Liberal Flatulence Goes the Hope of the West)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
Here are a few quotes from the MSM before Bush was elected:

"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 invigorated 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 an ilicit 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, December 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 Rockefeller (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

"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), Jan. 23. 2003

So the democrats say President Bush lied, that there never were any weapons of mass destruction and he took us to war for his oil buddies? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...........................

31 posted on 10/25/2005 3:47:58 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (If you decide to kick the tiger in the ass...you'd better be prepared to deal with the teeth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RasterMaster

The Russians had a policy for recovering 'illegal' arms and hiding them should the purchaser have to surrender to a greater force.

The stockpiles in IRAQ were quickly moved by a consortium of 'russians' (an easy description for far east organized crime) to Syria for storage in safe , underground facilities.

We watched them do it. We even helped. Better for the weapons to be secured, than for one of Saddam's sons to decide to use it.


32 posted on 10/25/2005 4:00:39 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (I jez calls it az I see it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

I just recall the Russians being mad that we bombed their "diplomats" while they were high-tailing it to Syria.


33 posted on 10/25/2005 4:02:37 PM PDT by RasterMaster (Proud Member of the Water Bucket Brigade - Merry MOOSEMUSS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI; All

Good post. Thanks. FReeper comments/research...GREAT!


34 posted on 10/25/2005 5:14:12 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

The MSM wants no part of a story like this --it might just show Bush was right.


35 posted on 10/25/2005 8:24:04 PM PDT by CedarDave (Life was simpler before Cindy showed up in Crawford.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

History will show that the MSM is simply an out of touch propaganda machine for what I call the "Lost Utopians",
those who follow the line of the DNC. Those retards are dangerous.


36 posted on 10/26/2005 10:39:33 PM PDT by Candor7 (Into Liberal Flatulence Goes the Hope of the West)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson