Who Said This? (Weapons of Mass Destruction)

Sykes Writes blog at WTMJ Milwaukee ^ | 24 Sep 03 | Various Dems

[Mr. Silverback]

WHO SAID THIS?

Weapons of Mass Destruction.....

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 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." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[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." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 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." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... 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 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." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001

"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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 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 ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"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" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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 ... 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." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 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." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Mr. Silverback]

I'm posting this the way Mr. Sykes posted it on his blog (with the names and dates attached), but asking an appeasenik to identify a few off these with the names removed could be big, big fun!

[Mr. Silverback]

Ping!

[HEY4QDEMS]

[Lexington Green]

wartime traitors

[finnman69]

"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people."

-- Al Gore, Dec. 16, 1998

[finnman69]

Wesley Clark March 23, 2003

You've referred to the campaign against Iraq as "elective surgery"; I imagine that means that you support disarming Saddam in principle, just not with the same urgency the Bush administration feels.

WC. My view on it was and has been that at some point you're going to need to take actions to deal with the problem of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. But those actions didn't have to necessarily be military and they didn't have to be now. It's the administration that chose to do this set of actions at this time. And the reason they've had problems persuading people of the necessity for doing it has been because they couldn't address the urgency.
...............................................
Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ...?

WC. I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

[Deputy Secretary of Defense] Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. [Deputy National Security Advisor] Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. [Under Secretary of Defense for Policy] Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with [Pentagon advisor] Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues.
..................................
Well, bearing that in mind, how do you think the war on terror is going?

WC. I think it's gone reasonably well, recognizing that we were never against the KGB. These guys were lucky but they were largely inept. And for all the talk about their sophistication and so forth, I think people were giving themselves a large measure of credit for being able to deal with the issue.

But the actual fact is, just like they said when they broke the code on Khalid Mohammed's laptop, it wasn't a very sophisticated code. It may have been encoded but it wasn't very sophisticated and they easily broke it. This is not the KGB we've been up against. So I don't want to diminish anything we've done, I think it's gone reasonably well -- we haven't been attacked again, and that's the way it should have been. I always felt that if we did things right we wouldn't be attacked again.

[Pagey]

bttt

[finnman69]

Monday Oct. 13, 2003; 10:50 a.m. EDT
Did Dems Mislead on Saddam's WMD Threat?

Even if it turned out that Saddam Hussein never possessed a single weapon of mass destruction [and it won't], Democrats have a huge problem trying to sell the idea that President Bush misled the nation when he warned about Iraq's WMD threat.

Why? Because they voiced the same warnings repeatedly as far back as 1998.

"Fox News Sunday" host Tony Snow did a deft job yesterday carving up war critic Sen. Jay Rockefeller, resurrecting rhetoric from West Virginia Democrat's 2002 addresses that sounded like they could have been written by Dick Cheney's speechwriters.

Today Andrew Sullivan's Web site offers a few more blasts from Democrats' recent past; comments that make their current complaints about the White House's Iraq war "fraud" sound downright hysterical.

Here, for instance, is what anti-war Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle and John Kerry had to say on Oct. 9, 1998 in a letter to the White House:

"[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."

Two months later, peacenik House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi offered her own two cents on the threat posed by Saddam:

"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."

Then there's Sen. Hillary Clinton, who in November of last year tried to argue that the Bush family merely wanted to settle an old score with Saddam. A month earlier, however, the former first lady warned:

"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. 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."

Here's more from Sen. Kerry, who called on Bush to apologize yesterday for misleading the nation about Saddam's WMDs, but two months before the U.S. attacked was urging action.

"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... [W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."

[finnman69]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1072902/posts?page=17#17

Kerry on Iraq in 1998: THE POTENTIAL 1998 ARMED CONFLICT WITH IRAQ(ABC Interview)
ABC THIS WEEK | FEBRUARY 22, 1998


Posted on 02/06/2004 1:59:33 PM EST by jmstein7


COKIE ROBERTS: Senator John Kerry, Democrat from Massachusetts, joining us today from Idaho. Senator John McCain, Republican from Arizona, and he's in Arizona.

Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for being with us this morning.

Sen. JOHN MCCAIN, (R-AZ)Armed Services Cmte.: Thank you.

COKIE ROBERTS: Now, what -- we've got this report that Kofi Annan is close to an agreement.

Senator McCain, is that something you welcome?

Sen. JOHN MCCAIN: Well, I would welcome if it means full compliance, but very frankly, I'm very nervous, and I'm a little more nervous after listening to the secretary of state talking about how UNSCOM will decide and that the secretary-general thinks he can sell this to the Security Council.

Frankly, this gives credence to many friends of mine who believe that the United States may be subordinating its -- its power to the United Nations.

It's not UNSCOM's young people that are -- lives are on the line, and it's not the Security Council's. It's whether the United States government and Congress, hopefully, along with the president, decide that Saddam Hussein is ready to comply and stop this acquisition of weapons of mass destruction -- not the Security Council and not UNSCOM.

And I'm very nervous about it. I hope that it's not a scenario where it's about 95 percent of what we want, and then a few days or weeks later, Saddam Hussein decides to reverse his course again.

COKIE ROBERTS: Senator Kerry, you were nodding there.

Sen. JOHN KERRY, (D-MA) Foreign Relations Cmte. : Well, I'm profoundly concerned, and I share John's skepticism. I think one of the great lessons that John and I both learned in the war that we fought in is that if you're going to commit America's young into harm's way, you want to make certain that you're going to achieve the goal and the country is prepared to go the distance.

I think there is a disconnect between the depth of the threat that Saddam Hussein presents to the world and what we are at the moment talking about doing. If indeed he is as significant a threat, as you heard him characterized by the president [Clinton], the secretary of state, the secretary of defense -- can threaten London, threaten the peace of the Middle East, that he is really a war criminal who is already at war with the civilized world -- then we have to be prepared to go the full distance, which is to do everything possible to disrupt his regime and to encourage the forces of democracy.

COKIE ROBERTS: And does that mean ground troops in Iraq?

Sen. JOHN KERRY: I am personally prepared, if that's what it meant. I don't think you have to start there. I think there are a number of other options. But

What I hear from the administration, thus far, is if he doesn't comply, then we will hit him.

The obvious question is, after you've hit him, have you opened up your inspections?

Well, I think the answer is probably not, certainly not in the near term. After you've hit him, is he still in power, capable of building weapons again? Every bit of intelligence John and I have says within various periods of time, he can rebuild both chemical and biological. And every indication is, because of his deception and duplicity in the past, he will seek to do that. So we will not eliminate the problem for ourselves or for the rest of the world with a bombing attack.

GEORGE WILL: Senator McCain, let's go back to the question whether or not American policy is de facto now hostage to the UN.

If the secretary-general comes back and says, I'm pleased with this, and he's speaking for the UN, and our rationale all along has been the integrity of the UN mandate, is it politically feasible for us to proceed with force.

Sen. JOHN MCCAIN: Oh, I think it's extremely difficult, George. You've already seen the divisions within the country. We shouldn't have set up this scenario that the secretary-general of the United Nations is making those decisions, de facto, as you see.

I guess it's an improvement over the foreign minister of Russia, who dictated the last one.

But reality is that if the secretary-general comes back and says, this is a good agreement and one that we can live with, and it's not one that we can live with, it makes it much, much more difficult, to say the least. That's obvious.

And one other comment. I agree with John. One of the reasons why the American people are skeptical, as both of us are, there has to be a long-term program to overthrow Saddam Hussein and get rid of him. And I'd start with setting up an organization within and outside of Iraq to do that.

GEORGE WILL: Senator Kerry, given the fact that we say, on the one hand, he's like Hitler -- the most evil man since Hitler, the secretary of state said this week -- yet he's not worth fighting for on the ground, fighting against on the ground, is it perhaps time for the United States to quit obsessing about him, say this is a problem we can't solve, and think about other things?

Sen. JOHN KERRY: Well, first of all, George, I don't believe it's not worth fighting for on the ground. And I think that's your last position, and there are many things you can do. And I'm quite confident you can make his life sufficiently miserable and deprive him of the ability to survive without necessarily having to reach that level. But I'm prepared to go to the level.

And the reason is very simple believe he is the kind of threat that has been described. I believe that in the post- Cold War period this issue of proliferation, particularly in the hands of Saddam Hussein, is critical. It has implications for a Qaddafi, for a Sudan, for other countries in the world in the future.

GEORGE WILL: Senator Kerry, you're way ahead of the commander in chief in this regard.

Sen. JOHN KERRY: I am way ahead of the commander in chief, and I'm probably way ahead of my colleagues and certainly of much of the country. But I believe this.

I believe that he has used these weapons before. He has invaded another country. He views himself as a modern-day Nebuchadnezzar. He wants to continue to play the uniting critical role in that part of the world. And I think we have to stand up to that.

SAM DONALDSON: Senator, on the point of your colleagues, let's talk about what may happen in Congress this coming week. Senator Lott said on Friday that he might bring up that resolution that's been brewing in the Senate on Thursday or maybe a week from Tuesday.

Senator McCain, do you think it would be a good idea to bring up a resolution of support, and if so, would it pass?

Sen. JOHN MCCAIN: First of all, we must support the young men and women at a minimum. Second of all, I believe that if that resolution says that there would be a commitment to eventually overthrowing Saddam Hussein, than I think that we could probably get it done.

But you've got to remember that this administration has lost great credibility by coming over and saying they're going to be out of Bosnia twice by a certain date -- they knowing they're not telling the truth and we knowing they weren't telling the truth -- by hyping the peace in the Middle East and Northern Ireland. Haiti is starting to go downhill.

This administration's foreign policy, which has been largely conducted without consulting or involving Congress, has lost great credibility, and the chickens are coming home to roost.

SAM DONALDSON: Well, Senator Kerry, what about the question to you? Should the resolution be brought up? Will it pass?

Sen. JOHN KERRY: Well, I think John is correct. I think that if there is an end game contained within it and a clarification to the members of Congress about the road we will proceed afterwards, yes, I think it would pass under those circumstances.

COKIE ROBERTS: But the road we would proceed afterwards your both saying would have to involve the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in some fashion, which is not something we've been terribly good at as a country other than through military action.

Sen. JOHN KERRY: I think the important thing, Cokie, is, is that we are committed to undertake a long-term policy. There's no guarantee ever in life. But there is one guarantee. If we do nothing, I promise you we will face this issue one way or the other again in the Gulf or with respect to Israel or in some form. And I think it is absolutely vital for us to recognize the enormous principle with respect to proliferation and the challenge that this represents in the long term for our country.

If we don't face this today, we will face it at some point down the road.

COKIE ROBERTS: Senator McCain, we need to move on now. But I'll let you have a final word.

Sen. JOHN MCCAIN: I believe that we should support the president. I believe that there has got to be a coherent foreign policy. I believe the president has to talk directly to the American people, and tell them that Americans will die and civilians will die and this is a tough business.

I certainly hope that we can reach a diplomatic solution, but I am not as optimistic as some.

COKIE ROBERTS: All right. Thank you very much, Senator John McCain, Senator John Kerry.

[finnman69]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1072896/posts

Kerry Flashback: REMARKS BY SENATOR JOHN KERRY (on Iraq, 12/16/98) - Strike Now!
Federal News Service - Public Domain | DECEMBER 16, 1998, WEDNESDAY


Posted on 02/06/2004 1:47:42 PM EST by jmstein7


REMARKS BY SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MA)
TOPIC: IRAQ
THE CAPITOL, SENATE RADIO/TV GALLERY
WASHINGTON, D.C.

SEN. KERRY: I believe that everybody who has been involved with the issue of Iraq understands that a day of reckoning has been a long time coming for Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein's objective is to maintain his weapons program, the program for building weapons of mass destruction. He has never been willing to open fully for inspection. For eight years he has avoided his responsibilities to the international community. He has toyed with the United Nations, with the United States, with UNSCOM, and with our allies. And I believe he has been given more opportunity to comply than he deserves.


I believe also that it is important for the United States and our allies to hold him accountable by using military force. I'm confident that every reasonable person who has followed this issue and who cares about the American interests in that region will understand the legitimacy of this moment.

This is not contrived, and it has nothing to do with impeachment. No one should question that once again -- once too many times -- it is Saddam Hussein who has brought this on himself. He has lied. He fails to comply with his own promises and his own obligations that he has accepted. He is a threat to the region and to its stability, and he is a threat to our international efforts for proliferation.
While I respect that many people have differing opinions about whether or not military action may accomplish all of our goals, it is clear to me that absent military action, with additional strategies, we will not hold Saddam Hussein accountable.
I support action at this time, but I also remain deeply concerned that there are larger issues of our long-term strategy that need to be answered still. And the American people need to understand precisely what will be entailed in order to achieve our longer-term objectives in the region. I believe the administration needs to share that strategy with us in the Senate, with our House colleagues, as well as with the American people. We must understand precisely what it will entail to achieve our goals and precisely what will be expected of the American people over that period of time.


Q Sir, if I could just ask a quick question. The chairman of the Rules Committee in the House is essentially saying, "Here we go again; the president is trying anything to get the issue off his hands." I know you've addressed that in your statement. But when you have a respected member of the House saying that on a day like today, what do you make of that?


SEN. KERRY: I think that the reason I wanted to make this statement today is that I think Americans need to really understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply.
The president does not control the schedule of UNSCOM. The president did not withdraw the UNSCOM inspectors. And the president did not, obviously, cut a deal with Saddam Hussein to do this at this moment.
Saddam Hussein has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction.

That is his overriding goal, because that's part of his long-term strategy in the region. I believe anybody who has responsibly followed this issue and cares about the larger interests of the United States should not, in keeping with that responsibility, cloud this issue with anything to do with impeachment.
It seems to me that it is even more perilous for a president who is facing impeachment to consider at this time trumping up some kind of use of the armed forces. If ever there might be something to invite impeachment, that would be it. So I believe that Americans ought to come together, understanding the larger interests that are at stake in the Gulf.
Now, again, I repeat, there is a bigger job yet to do of explaining to the American people what it will take for us to achieve our long-term goals in the region, and that strategy has not yet been thoroughly spelled out either to the Congress or to the American people.


Q Just one more question. Do you mean to tell me that you have -- have you ever seen a situation that's gotten as weird as this -- (off mike) -- (laughter) -- don't even have the words to describe it --


SEN. KERRY: Well, I was not a member of the United States Congress, but I was here a lot in the early 1970s when we were trying to end a war and I saw a lot of weirdness then, so -- we're seeing a repeat of a very strange time and certainly, I think, most Americans are feeling incensed and somewhat confused and perhaps even a little let down by the president and by the process. And there are a lot questions, no question about it.
I think that all of us here, however, have a wonderful opportunity to help people understand how the Constitution can really work effectively and how we could cross party lines to work together in a responsible way that would make sense to everybody and I think they're just waiting for people here to prove that they're capable of doing that rather than these terrible divisions along party lines that are really potentially going to have a long-term negative impact on our politics and on our country.
Thank you. I appreciate it.

[Mr. Silverback]

Heh-heh! Thanks!

BTW, translation of your tagline?

[AmeriBrit]

Bookmarked.

[Bullish]

NO way! The MSM hasn't reported this and there's been no 60 minutes segment on it. So it can't be true. So everyone should just go back to blaming Bush for lying to get us into a disastrous war. Besides, liberals can never be held accountable for the things they say.

< /sarc >