Skip to comments.Who thought Iraq had WMD? Most everybody
Posted on 05/25/2006 8:40:53 AM PDT by Caleb1411
As Memorial Day approaches, 51 percent of Americans, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, think the commander in chief "deliberately misled" us about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. "Deliberately misled"? Once again, let's go to the videotape:
Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, February 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."
Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, February 1998: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 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."
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. 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 know it because we never got to go back there."
Gen. 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 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."
Vermont Gov. 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 UN 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."
Dean, March 2003: "[Iraq] is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons."
Robert Einhorn, Clinton assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, 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."
Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., 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."
Rep. 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."
Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., ranking minority Intelligence Committee member, 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."
They're out there somewhere.
If you find pieces of WMD and they aren't assembled, does that mean he didn't have WMD?
LOL - well hells bells, even Saddam Hussein thought he had WMDs.
The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.109This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was probably a direct result of the IraqAl Qida agreement. Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the exact formula used by Iraq.110This language about al Qaedas understanding with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998.111
The 1984 concept that telling a lie often enough and loud enough will make people believe it's the truth. The Democrats and the MSM know this and thus outright lie to the public. It works!
I think a lot is buried, and a lot more are now in Syrian hands. Many of their military have admitted moving them across the border.
Even Saddam thought he had WMD's.
OH NO.....according to our liberal senators and reps Iraq is their friend, they walk on water you see.....why Bush just said this to start a war to finish what his father had going....
My goodness people don't you believe the liberals?
I don't know how it's possible to do some of the mass killing that they did under Saddam w/o 'em.
"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."
Better that they be lost forever than found by and used by the bad guys. Politics be damned, there are lives at stake. Perhaps this is what the President meant when he mentioned using political capital.
Stay safe and come home well.
Free Mumia! USA out of North America!
(slips off stool and falls to floor in drunken stupor)
Weren't there satellite photos taken during the weeks leading up to the war showing an enormous number of trucks crossing the Iraq/Syria border?
And we haven't counted Russia out, either. I wouldn't put it past them.
There are some still in Iraq. Why this hasn't come out, I don't know. They're here and people who count know about it.
Yes.... coincidental, I'm sure.
A Democratic president versus a Republican president?
If you want to wade through a bunch of raw information used in the investigation of Gulf War Syndrome, the above link is interesting. Saddam owned some serious stuff...and he picked some odd places to keep it.
George Bush wasn't in office then.
/s, I think...
Yes, we hope they're either lost forever or that the good guys find them.
We've had to prepare for that remotely possible incident and I'm telling you there's no way I'm putting on one of those chemical/biological suits during the summer around this place. LOL
John Kerry called them "massive weapons of individual destruction".
If you cannot defeat an enemy militarily, you could do it morally. What better damage to do to an enemy than to take away its credibility?
UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, June 11, 2004
The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.
The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.
The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.
More than a few Kurds amd Iranis would, if dead people could talk, say that they did. And they were not bashful about using them, either.
give it up! If you can't find it, then it never existed! Like Jimmy Hoffa never existed! And Natalie Holloway never existed!
Then my silver lighter that looks like a cowboy boot that I got at the Houston Rodeo never existed!
You forgot to include those two Brokeback Senate poster boys for the Democratic party at that time, Tommy Daschle and Dickie Gephardt issuing a joint statement back in '98 how Saadam had WMD's and was a threat to the world.
Nice list though........
They ask our soldiers to give 24/7 in some of the most rugged conditions imaginable...yet they can't keep any intensity levels up for a mere 20 hours a week in continuously setting the record straight about Iraq and the WOT.
The RNC is pathetic that it has never run ads simply showing what all others said regarding the WMDs along with stating the facts that we acted to removed Saddam from power for over a dozen reasons....the WMD equation was merely one of those reasons...and to a large extent the WMD equation has been dealt with. In that we know for certain now that Saddam and his Gov't will never posses WMDs again.
And from the 1998 State of the Union Show by President Clinton....
[Together, we also must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons -- and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf War. Now Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission.
I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein: You cannot defy the will of the world. (Applause.) And when I say to him: You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again. (Applause.)]
And this from the State of the Union Show 1999 by President Bill Clinton...
[For nearly a decade, Iraq has defied its obligations to destroy its weapons of terror and the missiles to deliver them. America will continue to contain Saddam -- and we will work for the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
Last month, in our action over Iraq, our troops were superb. Their mission was so flawlessly executed that we risk taking for granted the bravery and skill it required. Captain Jeff Taliaferro, a 10 year veteran of the Air Force, flew a B-1B bomber over Iraq as we attacked Saddam's war machine. He is here with us tonight. Let us honor him and all the 33,000 men and women of Desert Fox.
We are the heirs of a legacy of bravery represented by millions of veterans. America's defenders today stand ready at a moment's notice to go where comforts are few and dangers are many, doing what needs to be done as no one else can. They always come through for America. We must come through for them.]
They are in Syria, at least the WMD that haven't been provided to Iran and other terrorists.
Can anybody here remember the incident, shortly after we went into Iraq, where some chemical/WMD engineers from (I think) Syria, Libya, N. Korea were traveling on a train and were hit with a missle? The report said an American missle, but then it was dropped and never spoken of again.
I have been trying to find that, but I have a different computer than I had when that happened. I believe this was connected to the WMD from Iraq.
"Better that they be lost forever than found by and used by the bad guys. Politics be damned, there are lives at stake. Perhaps this is what the President meant when he mentioned using political capital. "
My thoughts exactly. We have the best satellite intel in the world and could track anything. Powell showed it to the UN in as much as identifying the licence plates of the trucks moving the crap out.
How did we lose hundreds of trucks that left Iraq for Syria? That still hasn't been answered yet.
Some of 'em are in Iraq.
have been found
This needs to be repeated again and again and announced from the rooftops. There are people in this country that are operating with a dangerous agenda, and it's not just the terrorists. These people will say what is expedient at one moment and then say the exact opposite when it serves their purposes. They are going to end up getting many good Americans KILLED, all for the sake of their little political games.
Where I come from that's called treason, and we have harsh punishments for that sort of thing... or we used to, anyway.
Oh I believe you Allegra. No doubt there's still much in Iraq. And I have read several articles proving enough was found in Iraq to justify the U.S. invasion.
I also believe the Anthrax used in this country during the 9/11 attacks came from Iraq.
Why, oh why, will the Republican leadership not get this info out to the public?
That just shows how good a liar Bush is.
Assume all the statements about Saddam having WMDs at the time of the invasion are true. I believed he had them along with everybody else. Granted, he may have moved some out to Syria, and he may have buried some. But surely, he kept a bunch handy. Why? He saw war coming.
Weapons are to wage war. Offensive and/or defensive war. There's no other purpose for WMDs.
So how come, pushed to the wall, faced with overwhelming probability of his removal from power, if not his death and that of his family, did he not use them against our troops? That's question that troubles me to this day. I can't answer it, and the attempts I've heard so far (we invaded too quickly, he only used a few and we didn't notice, he moved them all out so that he could return to power later, etc.) don't stand out as good enough; the only reason he had them was to use them to stay in power and make trouble.
To me, all other arguments about whether the WMDs existed, how many, where, etc. are subordinate to this: How come Saddam didn't use his WMDs against the invasion, in an all-out effort to save his regime?
Yep! Just a figment of your imagination!
Saddam's Christian general, what was his name? Sadr? He said that he saw the hollowed out passenger planes used to transport the weapons to Syria.
Saddam had WMD and was working on getting his nuke program running again. It's the truth. There is more evidence that he had them (attacks, witnesses) than that he didn't.
Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the low-enriched version could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions.
"A country like Iran," Cochran said, "could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium."
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.