Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Daschle convinced of Iraq's WMD (FLASHBACK: Daschle statement October 11, 2002)
US Senate ^ | October 11, 2002 | Tom Daschle

Posted on 06/07/2003 12:55:05 PM PDT by FairOpinion

Statement by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle on a Resolution Authorizing the President to Use Force, if Necessary, to End the Threat to World Peace from Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Thursday, October 10, 2002

Saddam Hussein has stockpiled, weaponized, and used chemical and biological weapons. And he has made no secret of his desire to acquire nuclear weapons. He has ignored international agreements and frustrated the efforts of international inspectors, and his ambitions today are as unrelenting as they have ever been.

As a condition of the truce that ended the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein agreed to eliminate Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and to abandon all efforts to develop or deliver such weapons. That agreement is spelled out in UN Security Council Resolution 687. Iraq has never complied with the resolution. For the first seven years after the Gulf War, it tried to deceive UN weapons inspectors, block their access to key sites and make it impossible for them to do their jobs. Finally, in October 1998, the UN was left with no choice but to withdraw its inspectors from Iraq. As a result, we do not know exactly what is now in Iraq’s arsenal.

We do know, however, that Iraq has weaponized thousands of gallons of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. We know that Iraq maintains stockpiles of some of world’s deadliest chemical weapons, including VX, sarin and mustard gas. We know that Iraq is developing deadlier ways to deliver these horrible weapons, including unmanned drones and long-range ballistic missiles. And we know that Saddam Hussein is committed to one day possessing nuclear weapons. If that should happen, instead of simply bullying the Gulf region, he could dominate it. Instead of threatening only his neighbors, he would become a grave threat to US security and to global security. The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored. ...

Second: We need to make it clear to the world that the reason we would use force in Iraq is to remove Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. I would prefer that this goal had been made explicit in this resolution. However, it is clear from this debate that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction are the principal threat to the United States -- and the only threat that would justify the use of United States military force against Iraq. It is the threat that the President cited repeatedly in his speech to the American people Monday night. It may also be the only threat that can rally the world to support our efforts. Therefore, we expect, and success demands, that the Administration not lose sight of this essential mission.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: daschle; democrats; iraq; kerry; saddam; weapons; wmd
Daschle saw the same intel that Bush saw, and obviously Daschle was convinced that Saddam had WMD.

Also, not the last paragraph of my excerpt, where Daschle is making the point that apparently the resolution doesn't cite WMD as the only reason to get Saddam out, and he, Daschle wants to emphasize that.

(Link is to file in pdf, so it may take a moment to load)

Also, for those of you who may not have seen it, here is another important flashback of a letter to Clinton urging him to attack Iraq, because of Iraq's WMD, dated 1998, signed by members of Senate Armed Services Committee members, including several key Democrats.

1 posted on 06/07/2003 12:55:06 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
great source...

2 posted on 06/07/2003 1:01:08 PM PDT by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
"great source... "


It's the truth. We can and should hang the Democrats with their own words.

How come they were convinced in 1998 and 2002 and all along, that Saddam had WMD, and now all of a sudden start questioning it?

We need to keep pointing out the truth, and not let them get away with their accusations. Some are even starting to call for Bush's impeachment because he "lied" about WMD. These are the same Democrats who were urging Clinton in 1998 to attack Iraq, because of their WMD.
3 posted on 06/07/2003 1:35:06 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Check out this speech by Sen. Kerry from around the same date. They all believed the intelligence as well. It will be hard to say Bush lied to them or Bush exaggerated when they discussed the same intelligence as valid and very troubling.

4 posted on 06/07/2003 1:53:14 PM PDT by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
"Check out this speech by Sen. Kerry from around the same date."

Another good find. And we (all Republicans and conservatives columnists) need to keep pointing this out, EVERY single time they repeat the accusation.

Here is an excerpt from the link you gave of Kerry's speech:

It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution.

Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program--R&D, production and weaponization--are active.

Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland.

Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program, probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region.

In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles UAVs, capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.

Prior to the gulf war, Iraq had an advance nuclear weapons development program. Although UNSCOM and IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors learned much about Iraq's efforts in this area, Iraq has failed to provide complete information on all aspects of its program.

Iraq has maintained its nuclear scientists and technicians as well as sufficient dual-use manufacturing capability to support a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. Iraqi defectors who once worked for Iraq's nuclear weapons establishment have reportedly told American officials that acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority for Saddam Hussein's regime.

According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons.
5 posted on 06/07/2003 2:05:50 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
You're right. The Rats'r dupicity must be pointed out regularly.
6 posted on 06/07/2003 3:18:32 PM PDT by Bigg Red (Bush/Cheney in '04 and Tommy Daschole out the door)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red
"You're right. The Rats'r dupicity must be pointed out regularly. "


Here is a great thread started with links to various relevant articles: ammunition.

7 posted on 06/07/2003 4:09:11 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
8 posted on 06/07/2003 4:11:26 PM PDT by ChadGore (Piss off a liberal: Hire Someone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
They are convinced otherwise because it's all so easy to get behind a concerted media campaign.The media jerk these puppets around and call their tune, and they each can offer plausible deniability for each.It's a perfect symbiotic relationship, like two drunks sharing a bottle of Four Aces behind a dumpster....
9 posted on 06/07/2003 4:17:10 PM PDT by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Excellent links. Thanks.

BTW, Rats'r = Rats'
dupicity = duplicity

10 posted on 06/09/2003 6:48:54 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Bush/Cheney in '04 and Tommy Daschole out the door)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
11 posted on 06/25/2003 7:09:07 PM PDT by votelife (FREE MIGUEL ESTRADA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
PTT (Push To the Top)
12 posted on 06/28/2003 6:07:32 AM PDT by _Jim (The MOTHERLOAD of conspiracy writings -
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
I think Daschle would rather if people forgot about his statement.

He, Clinton and many Democrats were fully convinced of Saddam's WMD when Clinton was president and even urged him to attack Iraq, and now all of a sudden they claim that Saddam never had WMD.

I think that as long as they keep accusing President Bush of "exaggerating" or outright lying about WMD-s, we should keep these quotes up every day. I think some others had collected quotes from Clinton and other Democrats.

If they thought there were sufficient amount of facts back in 1998 and since, how come all of a sudden they retroactively claim that there wasn't enough justification.

I think insurance companies should start using this excuse to refuse to pay off on claims. Next time someone submits a claim that some valuable object is lost or stolen, or the insurance company should say: well, we'll search your premises and if we can't find your object, that means you never had it and we won't pay. So what if you submitted pictures of it before, that doesn't prove anything. If you don't have it now, you never had. Great boon for insurance companies, never have to pay off on any claims.

Same logic, as what the Democrats are using on Iraq's WMD.
13 posted on 06/28/2003 8:35:36 AM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | 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
Topics · Post Article

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