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

Skip to comments.

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People (Updated)
Right Wing News ^ | June 19, 2003 | John Hawkins

Posted on 06/19/2003 6:11:23 AM PDT by conservativecorner

Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq yet, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is claiming that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The story being floated now is that Saddam had no WMD (or almost none) and that the Bush administration didn't tell the truth about the WMD threat.

Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same lies since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples of what I'm talking about...

"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"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." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: barbaramilulski; diannefeinstein; intelligence; iraq; joelieberman; johnkerry; tomdaschle; wmd; x42
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
To: evad
Me: Saying "they lied too" just reduces GWB to the disgusting level of those he's being compared to.

You: Who in the Bush administration has said that?

------------------

The Bush administration didn't. This article is using that argument by listing the WMD claims of prominent Dems. That argument is counterproductive to maintaining the respect this administration has earned.

21 posted on 06/19/2003 7:02:08 AM PDT by grania ("Won't get fooled again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
So are we saying that George Bush is at least as honest as Bill Clinton?
22 posted on 06/19/2003 7:02:58 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: evad
If you read my post, I never siad that I didn't think Hussein wasn't a threat. I never said anything about him at all. My point is that President Bush and others in his Daministration made some pretty wild claims in front of a world-wide venue, and put our national credibility on the line, and now can't begin to come close to matching those wild claims with anything more than a couple of old half-tracks in the desert? They were SO certain that they listed categorically all of the prohibited weapons that he had.. They showed pictures of facilities and missiles. They also put our bothers and sisters over there (and my old AF unit). Where I come from, if you make some wild a$$ claim, you'd better be able to back it up with something. Especially when the ones who stand to lose the most are our troops who are over there right now.
23 posted on 06/19/2003 7:06:09 AM PDT by homeschool_dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
Desperate? ROFLMAO! Have you seen the latest poll numbers for GW? The american people know the truth, and I'm simply posting the dims in thier own words. You can also throw many many countries that were/are sure that Iraq had a large WMD program throughout the 12 years that the UN diddled while Saddam schemed.
24 posted on 06/19/2003 7:09:02 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
In the Democrats own words, "Let's Move On".
25 posted on 06/19/2003 7:09:07 AM PDT by shiva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Hey, I'm all for pre-emptive strikes, and I only wish my old faithful F111A wasn't in the bone yard. I'd love to have seen my old aardvark come in low and fast - but what is there to come in low and fast on? I think we WERE mislead, and it disappoints me.
26 posted on 06/19/2003 7:10:27 AM PDT by homeschool_dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
Truth is not determined by polls. There was a time not so long ago when allegedly principled conservatives understood this and often criticized the "high poll rating" defense. No more.
27 posted on 06/19/2003 7:11:53 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I believe GW to be as honest a president as this nation has ever had. I know that Bill Clinton was one of the most dishonest presidents this country has ever had. Any more questions?
28 posted on 06/19/2003 7:12:40 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: shiva
No way! As long as the dims make this an issue, we can use their own BS against them. I love to skewer them at every turn. Amy more question?
29 posted on 06/19/2003 7:14:44 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
This was in another thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/930515/posts?page=21#21
We were told we were in imminent danger and that was why we had to go on the offense quickly.

Not quite...seems you have fallen for a Krugman line...I had a heck of a time finding the info again, but here is some info that was posted previously on FR about the "imminent threat":


I'm sure others have picked up on this, but in the off-hand chance they haven't, there's a major problem with Krugman's most recent column. He says:

"The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than Iran- contra."
I did some checking and found the text of the President's most recent State of the Union address. Here's the exact quote regarding the "imminent" threat:


"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"
Here, it's crystal clear that Bush is not making the claim that the threat was imminent. He's striking before the threat is imminent -- and that was the gamble Bush took. A strike against an imminent threat would not have generated the controversy the Iraq invasion generated.
At first I thought that Mr. French was making a mistake by limiting his search to this year’s State of the Union Address. So I did a Google search using the terms “Bush” “imminent” and “Iraq”. I did find news articles claiming Bush was saying the Iraqi threat was imminent. For example, one article referred to the State of the Union speech, while another referred to the October 7th address. But, as Mr. French pointed out, Bush didn’t say the Iraqi threat was imminent in the State of the Union. And Bush never used the term in the October 7th address. The same held true for Bush’s speech last year to the United Nations, his speech/press conference of March 6th, and his speech as the war was beginning. Either Bush didn’t use the word “imminent,” or he used it to argue that we should not wait until the threat is imminent.

Looks like media spin, not anything Bush specifically said. And it looks like Krugman’s quote problem continues…


Source

20 posted on 06/17/2003 2:14 PM EDT by ravingnutter

30 posted on 06/19/2003 7:14:54 AM PDT by eyespysomething (Breaking down the stereotypes of soccer moms everyday!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Prof Engineer
bump for later
31 posted on 06/19/2003 7:15:09 AM PDT by msdrby (I do believe the cheese slid off his cracker! - The Green Mile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad
Aren't we tired of that?

I guess not. Our outrage over disinformation seems dependent on source. Party over principle.

I wonder if we'll attack Britain for selling Iraq those WMD trailers in 87.
32 posted on 06/19/2003 7:16:52 AM PDT by steve50 (I don't know about being with "us", but I'm with the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
The truth is that the UN and various nations were/are sure that there were active WMD programs in Iraq for 12 years between Gulf 1 and 2. The question was always what to do about it. For 12 years Saddam thumbed his nose at the world, and we thankfully elected a president that was determined to rid us and the world of this very real threat post 9/11.
33 posted on 06/19/2003 7:20:01 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
"Using Democrats as credible sources! Pro-war freepers are becoming desperate!"

Men view it as pro-defending and protecting America from enemies both foreign and domestic.

Men of integrity take their oaths seriously.

Men of integrity are interested in protecting the weak --- unlike Clinton who USES women and children for his personal agenda.

As Karl Marx, and other cynical commie opportunists know, the anti-war crowd could never succeed without their flaked and formed, emotionally immature, feminized male and air-head female useful idiots backing them.

34 posted on 06/19/2003 7:22:33 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Marxist DemocRATS, Nader-Greens, and Religious KOOKS = a clear and present danger to our Freedoms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: grania
I see where you are coming from but I just don't see how any writer of an article or comparisons to a bunch of known liers reduces W in any way...and certainly not to a "disgusting level".

To me the only thing that can reduce W to the disgusting level of a Daschle, et al is if he or his administration makes claims that "they lied too".

35 posted on 06/19/2003 7:25:10 AM PDT by evad (Lying..It's WHAT they do, it's ALL they do and they WON'T stop...EVER!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad
I think we WERE mislead, and it disappoints me.


Well disappointments are a fact of life. You take the best intelligence data you can get and make an assessment. I think the President and his administration did that. I don't think they deliberately lied about what they were given. The data may have been faulty but if so it's been that way for years it seems as previous administrations have believed the WMD issue.

Now you have a nice one..... It's a beautiful day to be alive.


36 posted on 06/19/2003 7:26:04 AM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
"Using Democrats as credible sources! Pro-war freepers are becoming desperate!"

Men view it as pro-defending and protecting America from enemies both foreign and domestic.

Men of integrity take their oaths seriously.

Men of integrity are interested in protecting the weak --- unlike Clinton who USES women and children for his personal agenda.

As Karl Marx, and other cynical commie opportunists know, the anti-war crowd could never succeed without their flaked and formed, emotionally immature, feminized male and air-head female useful idiots backing them.

37 posted on 06/19/2003 7:27:57 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Marxist DemocRATS, Nader-Greens, and Religious KOOKS = a clear and present danger to our Freedoms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: deport
Thanks! And that's something we CAN wholeheartedly agree on - it IS a beautiful day to be alive, and there is nowhere else I'd rather be than right here. Regardless of what's gone on, our President still has my support.
38 posted on 06/19/2003 7:31:06 AM PDT by homeschool_dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
Since we haven't announced we found WMD in Iraq yet,
39 posted on 06/19/2003 7:33:50 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad
Where I come from, if you make some wild a$$ claim, you'd better be able to back it up with something.

Well, give it time. They've been developing and hiding this stuff for 12+ years and it might take a while to find it.

I personally am willing to give a man of integrity like Bush a bit of a benefit of the doubt, even if he is a politician. I also don't think that a man like Powell would have been a part of any conspiracy to mislead the American people as is alleged by known liers like Kerry.

I hope that the proof that you are looking for comes soon. In the meantime, I feel better knowing that this particular clear and present danger has been removed.

40 posted on 06/19/2003 7:34:54 AM PDT by evad (Lying..It's WHAT they do, it's ALL they do and they WON'T stop...EVER!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

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