If Bush, Powell & Rumsfeld "Lied" on WMD, So Did the UN, EU & Clinton (RUSH LIMBAUGH)

rushlimbaugh ^ | 6/2/2003 | Rush Limbaugh

[TLBSHOW]

If Bush, Powell & Rumsfeld "Lied" on WMD, So Did the UN, EU & Clinton

June 2, 2003

My friends, I'm not denying that the Bush administration made disarming the Hussein regime of WMD a big reason for going to war. But we can't declare that there never were any weapons in Iraq after only a few weeks. Those who do so are stepping into a pile of quicksand on this, because we're going to find more evidence of WMD - and it'll be door-in-face time. You people are so ready to call Bush a liar, but in doing so you'll have to admit that Bill Clinton was a liar - just as we'll have to cite him as credible to make this point. (See speeches below)

One caller charged Colin Powell should go to Iraq and show us the WMD facilities he talked about. Um, do you people think Saddam Hussein could've watched that same briefing and dumped his WMD? Another liberal caller said, "My side isn't denying Saddam had WMD." Au contraire, histoire revisionists. That's your whole mantra now - to the point where you say we can't believe the administration on Iran's nuclear program or even believe the North Koreans on the nukes they themselves told us they have.

Over the weekend, I went back in time and dug up examples of what liberals and President Bush said about Saddam's arsenal of banned weapons. Stephen Hayes' Weekly Standard column lists a bunch of Bill Clinton's statements on this subject. Remember this Clinton quote from 1998: "If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction...he will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction.... Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." Do any of those words sound like Clinton thinks Saddam doesn't have an arsenal?

More Clinton Quotes - They're All Right Below, Cited for Your Convenience

On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton ordered a strike "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States..." February 17, 1998, Bill Clinton: "Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan." Here are just some of the things this defection forced Iraq to admit, as cited by Clinton: "[A]n offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum...2,000 gallons of anthrax, 25 biological-filled scud warheads, and 157 aerial bombs."

In President Bush's January 28, 2003 State of the Union he specifically cited the information gathered by the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency and Bill Clinton as a basis for his conclusion that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction. In my view, Saddam either hid them or destroyed them prior to the end of months of diplomacy and dithering with the UN. Maybe he shipped them out of the country - perhaps to Syria's Bekáa Valley. So if you conclude that Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney lied, you have to add all these other folks into the list.

More from Clinton: "And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production." Of course, Saddam's son-in-law was killed when he returned to Iraq. Now, I know that everybody on the right said Clinton was using Iraq to distract from his impeachment scandal. You have a point, but screw it. This is what Clinton said, and I think someone should point it out to his supporters who are now out there saying there were never any WMD in Iraq.

Clinton always spoke about Hussein's arsenal as a fact - with none of his characteristic wiggle room or hedging - and of the dictator's determination to build it as a fact. At the time, Democrats from Al Gore to Senator Tom Daschle backed Clinton 100%. So did the United Nations. President Clinton and the UN relied on intelligence information similar to the information relied on by Bush, folks. Yet when it was suggested that Clinton acted out of personal reasons to deflect from his criminal offenses, today's Bush critics dismissed that as "politics." Of course unlike Clinton and the UN, Bush is not a liberal. He took effective steps to destroy Saddam Hussein - and for that, he's attacked.

Read About Our OTHER Reasons for Liberating Iraq...

(EIB Alert! WMDs Only ONE Reason for War)

Listen to Rush...

(...cite Bush's use of Clinton and UN Iraq data in his State of the Union) (...quote Bill Clinton making some Bush-like statements on Saddam in the late 90s) (...talk to two liberals who're trying to rewrite their party's denial of Hussein's WMDs) (...talk to Jim, who says Powell & Bush lied on Iraq so can't be trusted in N. Korea, Iran)

Video, Audio & Text: Bush & Clinton Speeches on Saddam's Weapons Programs...

(CNN: Text of Clinton Statement on Iraq -02.17.98) (CNN: Clinton demands total access for U.N. arms inspectors -02.17.98) (CNN: Clinton Speech - Iraq has Abused its Last Chance -12.16.98) (CNN: Clinton - Strikes Necessary to Stunt Weapons Programs -12.16.98) (Bush's State of the Union speech -01.28.03) (Bush Speech to the United Nations -09.12.02) (White House: President Says Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours -3.17.03)

Read the Article...

(FrontPageMag: Democrats for Regime Change: 11.6.02 - Stephen F. Hayes)

[Bubba_Leroy]

We haven't found Saddam yet either. That proves that he never really existed.

[Austin Willard Wright]

I don't think Dubya lied. IMHO he just exagerated some dubious intelligence reports and engaged in wishful thinking so as to scare people. As to the UN and Clinton, of course, they are capable of lying

[votelife]

the benefit of this Clinton/UN stuff is that Bush can say I trusted Clinton, won't make that mistake again! Of course, I think there are wmds, and that we will/have get them.

[LiteKeeper]

Mega-dittoes

[joesbucks]

Todd, c'mon. Let's face it, Clinton is capable of...well we even know he had no fear of lying. BUT, his allegations against Saddam were made in 1998.....5 years ago as shown by El Rushbo. A lot can change in 5 years, including the end of a WMD program. Hell, in 5 years I've changed jobs and wives, lost weight and now have money in the bank. Five years made a big difference to me.

We've based too much of our intelligence on what I consider old information in any event. And don't forget, we told Mr. Blix that he was looking in all the wrong places and we KNEW where the stuff was being stored and manufactured. We just couldn't tell him cause it would compromise our security assets. Frankly, I don't think we could have told him cause we didn't know.

To take Saddam out because he was a slaughtering dictator is our reason, then that should have been our reason. Our only reason. But so far we also based our reasons and weighted them in favor of WMD's and Al- Queda connections. So far no WMD's and the Al-Queda connections have been weak too.

If the Bush administration wants to start relying on Clinton's assertations from 5 years ago, then we are in trouble.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for posting this:

See this for a lot of links to Articles posted in the last few days . with much ranting and raving here on Free Republic:

IRAQ: Powell Defends Information He Used to Justify Iraq War

[Jorge]

I don't think Dubya lied. IMHO he just exagerated some dubious intelligence reports and engaged in wishful thinking so as to scare people.

I don't believe Bush exagerated or engaged in wishful thinking to scare people either.
Even those on the UN Security Council who opposed the war agreed that Saddam had WMDs.

[DrDeb]

During his speech to the UN Assembly (9/02), the President outlined his conditions for peace vs war in Iraq. You will note that the WMD issue constitutes only 1 of the 5 conditions:


"The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections