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: homeschool_dad
But to me, just an average joe in Wisconsin, I honestly expected them to be able to produce SOMETHING in the way of evidence,

Even if such a move hinders the investigations and causes some weapons to go undetected ?

Do you require your local police department to release its information regarding ongoing investigations ?

41 posted on 06/19/2003 7:40:19 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 2 | View Replies]

To: steve50
Actually, if he didn't have the weapons, materials, means, then he did an amazing snow job on the entire world, including the whole UN security council.

Of course, they could have been lying, because the UN made quite a bit of money off the oil-for-palaces program. Surely they didn't want that discontinued. Of course, that may be why the protested the actions of the US also. I tend to believe our politicians more than other countries. Plus, we don't see Pootin, Chretin, Chirac and Schroder saying that Bush lied. Don't you think they would. This is all an issue created by the Dems because none of the other gazillion ones stuck.

Now, if you want to complain about Bush's spending - I'll complain with you. But this, nah.


From a Canadian gov. website:
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/middle_east/iraq_weapons-en.asp

< snip >
According to UNSCOM, Iraq began its programs to develop biological and chemical weapons in the early 1970s. In 1995, following the defection of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, inspectors gained greater knowledge about Iraq's biological weapons program, which was far more extensive than previously thought. Activities related to BW are the most difficult to detect because they require much more limited infrastructure. UNSCOM destroyed Iraq's declared BW facilities and set up monitoring of dual-use equipment at other facilities. However, UN inspectors were unable to determine the full extent of the Iraqi program prior to their departure in 1998.

UNSCOM also uncovered a vast Iraqi chemical weapons program. Between 1991 and 1998, it supervised the destruction of over 40,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions and 411 tonnes of bulk CW agents. However, UNSCOM reported that the destruction of about 2,000 unfilled munitions was uncertain, that the destruction by melting of 15,000 rockets was not verifiable, and that 500 mustard-filled shells remained unaccounted for. In addition, the unilateral destruction in 1991 by Iraq of 242 tonnes of precursors for VX production was only partly accounted for. While Iraq claimed that it never turned VX into a weapon, in 1998 degradation products of VX were found by a U.S. laboratory on missile warhead remnants.

< snip >

Before 1991, Iraq was also actively purchasing, developing and producing long-range missiles that could have been used to deliver its chemical and biological weapons, as well as future nuclear weapons. UNSCOM destroyed Iraq's declared stock of ballistic missiles, however discrepancies and the absence of inspectors for stocks declared destroyed by Iraq indicate that Iraq may have retained a small number of long-range missiles (up to 650 km), perhaps as many as a dozen.

< snip >



The evidence is out there, and anyone who says different is as foolish as someone saying we needed the permission of the UN to do what we did.


42 posted on 06/19/2003 7:42:32 AM PDT by eyespysomething (Breaking down the stereotypes of soccer moms everyday!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: evad
They've been developing and hiding this stuff for 12+ years and it might take a while to find it.

Right.   If it can be determined that a significant number of people in these mass graves might have come from one particular locale (or perhaps several), I'd be sorely tempted to consider whether WMDs might be hidden near (or under) where those folks used to live.

HF

43 posted on 06/19/2003 7:55:44 AM PDT by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner; All
Does anyone have secondary verification of these quotes? I want to use them to refute an argument on another message board, but I need verification.
44 posted on 06/19/2003 7:55:54 AM PDT by Rebelbase (........The bartender yells, "hey get out of here, we don't serve breakfast!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething
You claim the UN had ulterior motives for making WMD restrictions continue, then quote them as a source for backing up US intelligence?

45 posted on 06/19/2003 7:59:58 AM PDT by steve50 (I don't know about being with "us", but I'm with the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: steve50
I guess what I am claiming is anyone could be lying about the WMD, for a myriad of reasons.

But are they? Maybe the UN just hoped the inspections would continue ad infinitum. "well, we think he has them, but containment is working so well."

46 posted on 06/19/2003 8:04:52 AM PDT by eyespysomething (Breaking down the stereotypes of soccer moms everyday!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: steve50
I guess if I am pinned down on it, I am as cynical as many about politicians. But I don't see what Bush would have gained by lying, knowing he would have to produce evidence once the war was over. Do you?
47 posted on 06/19/2003 8:08:32 AM PDT by eyespysomething (Breaking down the stereotypes of soccer moms everyday!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
I've been a Clinton hater on this forum since you were a newbie. Your attacks on Clinton are persuasive. Why aren't you attacking the author of this piece since he is citing Clinton as a credible source?
48 posted on 06/19/2003 8:09:14 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething
Dubya didn't lie, he hoped. He twisted dubious evidence expecting to find WMD once the troops went in.
49 posted on 06/19/2003 8:10:01 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
Come, come, come now, this does not count, they are democracts, thats OK.
50 posted on 06/19/2003 8:16:11 AM PDT by gulfcoast6 (Swallowing angry words is much better than having to eat them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething
Now, if you want to complain about Bush's spending - I'll complain with you. But this, nah.

AMEN!! brother. It drives me insane.

I have a serious problem with W's policy of giving the dims what they want and then taking credit for it so he can "take away" their issue.

To me it's like appeasing a terrorist or any other type of appeasement...there may be some short term gain for the present but it will haunt you forever.

51 posted on 06/19/2003 8:18:21 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 42 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething
But I don't see what Bush would have gained by lying, knowing he would have to produce evidence once the war was over. Do you?

There seems to be a lack of reason and common sense applied by some of these FReepers.

They don't want to think...they want the answers handed to them in perfect black and white text.

52 posted on 06/19/2003 8:21:15 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 47 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething
I guess if I am pinned down on it, I am as cynical as many about politicians. But I don't see what Bush would have gained by lying, knowing he would have to produce evidence once the war was over. Do you?

I'm from the old school of investigation. As any cop worth his salt would say " follow the money". The gains are huge for certain factions, especially considering the call to "privitize" the oil resources.

So we now have Tenet, who appears to be the fall guy, if he doesn't find the WMD his and Rummys sources claimed were there. Bush has plausible deniability and conservatives can blame the old klintoon crony for misleading the administration if the CIA and it's inspectors can't "produce" the evidence.
53 posted on 06/19/2003 8:23:00 AM PDT by steve50 (I don't know about being with "us", but I'm with the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
bump
54 posted on 06/19/2003 8:25:20 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
Let's see:

IMO, and many others, Hussein was not right in the head.

Iraq had a chem and bio program and was trying to restart nuclear.

He had documented chem and bio when the inspectors left in 1998.

He had used said weapons before, both on a foreign country (Iran) and his own citizens.

He would be pleased by our downfall.

A group of terrorists are intent on our downfall.

Chem and bio weapons would help this group bring about our downfall, and they are looking for such means.

America now knows it is no longer safe due to distance, lax immigration, porous borders, etc.

I am President and I am presented with this. I am given a few scenarios:

a) Hussein won't do anything, he is scared of us and world opinion.

b) He won't help this group of terrorists, he is secular, and they feel the same.

c) There is a good chance, not 100%, but say 90%, that these 2 are already in contact with each other, and we know one has/had recently what the other wants...


I have to try and make the whole world go along with this, so I can get it through my government to keep my country safe.

Think...think...think... I KNOW!

Hussein has violated Resolution after Resolution of the Security council, they'll have to agree with that.. I'll be able to protect America before the threat is imminent, and the world will agree with such blatant disregard by Hussein of the international resolutions of the UN...
55 posted on 06/19/2003 8:53:01 AM PDT by eyespysomething (Breaking down the stereotypes of soccer moms everyday!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: steve50
So it was about the oil!
56 posted on 06/19/2003 8:53:38 AM PDT by eyespysomething (Breaking down the stereotypes of soccer moms everyday!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
thank you I like to chat in a political room on yahoo,these quotes just drive the democrats nuts ,thanks for giving me more!
57 posted on 06/19/2003 8:59:17 AM PDT by linn37 (Have you hugged your Phlebotomist today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
thank you I like to chat in a political room on yahoo,these quotes just drive the democrats nuts ,thanks for giving me more!
58 posted on 06/19/2003 8:59:17 AM PDT by linn37 (Have you hugged your Phlebotomist today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad
You made reference to the MASSIVE amounts of weapons at his disposal" Powell's and Bush's references to those large amounts had to do with what Saddam and the UN said he had. Powell holding up the vile was an illustration of how hard it might be to find this stuff once it gets out of Saddam's hands and the damage such a small amount can do. I don't think they streched the evidence, but made it clear what we had to do with what evidence we had at that point.
59 posted on 06/19/2003 9:01:06 AM PDT by W04Man (Bush2004 Grassroots Campaign aka BushBot www.w-04.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: homeschool_dad
But, I can't help but see an disheartening similarity between clinton's finger waving, and Mr. Powel holding up the vial of "anthrax" powder at the u.n.

Agreed. It also makes us look insipid when we attempt to blame others (Klintoon included) for the intelligence failure. To put it bluntly, Bush should have double and triple checked all the data provided by the U.N. and the Klintoon admin.

Why would we trust anything given to us by those two?

60 posted on 06/19/2003 9:07:29 AM PDT by pickemuphere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | 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