Iraq - Democrats Lied About WMDs

Yesterday, former President Jimmy Carter accused the Bush Administration of manipulating pre war intelligence about Iraq's WMDs. But here's what he said back in Feb 03.

"He obviously has the capability and desire to build prohibited weapons and probably has some hidden in his country.

Here is a handy list of what the Democrats were saying about Iraq and WMDs before the election campaign.

See here for more debunking of the Bush lied myth.
(Info from the Link posted below)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

"Bush lied" campaign collapses

The Democrat's and anti-war movement's "Bush lied" campaign has collapsed.

First, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have been found here, here, here and here.

Second, links between Saddam and Al Qaeda proven here, here, here, here and here.

Third, it seems Saddam was trying to buy Uranium from Nigeria after all.

Inquiry will back intelligence that Iraq sought uranium

That is in addition to US reveals Iraq nuclear operation

The US has revealed that it removed more than 1.7 metric tons of radioactive material from Iraq in a secret operation last month.

Fourth, there was no pressure put on US intelligence over Iraq.

The unanimous report by the panel will say there is no evidence that intelligence officials were subjected to pressure to reach particular conclusions about Iraq.

Fifth, the Iraq war was about oil alright as we can plainly see from the UN oil-for-food scandal.

The evidence proving Bush was right is also coming from some unlikely sources.

Russia Warned U.S. About Iraq, Putin Says

Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country.

Clinton defends successor's push for war

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

Front Page goes further.

An article titled "The Big Lie Campaign", contains this:

In either case – and in both cases – what we are confronting in this spectacle is an unprecedented event in American political life. In the midst of a good war and a noble enterprise, a major American party [the Democrats] is engaged in an effort to stab its own country in the back for short term political gain, and is willing to do to so by the most underhanded and unscrupulous means.

Terrorists the world over must be laughing at how we are tearing ourselves apart while they make plans to speed up the process.

UPDATE: More on the Uranium - Niger - Saddam story and it was Joe Wilson who lied not Bush. Happy Anniversary to Joseph C. Wilson IV

And the The Senate Intelligence Committee Report by Dan Darling.

Also, this demolishes 2 of Richard Clarke's key claims with respect to Iraq: that there was no Iraqi involvement in terrorism post-1993, and that there is no evidence whatsoever of Iraqi support for al-Qaeda. Both of these claims, to put it quite simply, can now be shown to be factually untrue.

Here is a handy list of what the Democrats were saying about Iraq and WMDs before the election campaign.

UPDATE 2: The UK Lord Butler Report backs Blair and Bush on Iraq's attempts to buy Uranium from Niger.

499. We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded.

By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, was well-founded.

UPDATE

More Democrats who claim Iraq had WMDs

More Chemical weapons found?

Joseph Wilson lied

The words “cruel [and] unusual” are taken right out of the 8th Amendment – “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” -- thereby conferring on a bunch of terrorists the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of U.S. citizenship.

But “degrading treatment” is a phrase lifted from a document drafted by the United Nations.

Henceforth international terrorists throughout the world have all the rights of accused criminals in the United States. And an additional right – freedom from “degrading treatment” – which comes from the U.N., an organization also known as Hate America International.

We can’t tolerate this surrender to Kofi Annan’s gang, a cowardly act designed to undercut the self-preservation of Americans under international attack.

Let’s Clear Up A Few Things Right Now

We don’t torture prisoners. We don’t blindfold them, threaten them with execution, and televise their pathetic pleas for life.

We don’t condone cruel and unusual punishments. We don’t lop off prisoners’ heads in front of TV cameras or on the world wide web.

With few exceptions, we treat prisoners as humanely as any enemy has ever treated its enemies. Ask the handful of U.S. troops who survived captivity how the terrorists treated them.

Abu-Gharib was the exception -- not the rule -- and mere child's play in comparison to how these terrorists, murderers and thugs treat our people -- or even their own people for that matter.

The only atrocities going on at Guantanamo Bay are the atrocities that these murderers and thugs who are being detained are heaping upon the fine U.S. soldiers assigned to guard them.

We give these terrorists their own Korans, prayer rugs, clean living conditions, indoor plumbing and three square meals a day... many of them NEVER had it so good.

Of course that has not stopped anti-America members of our own media from literally beating up on our brave men and women in uniform -- looking for isolated examples of "abuse" -- and -- in many cases -- simply making them up.

These facts did not stop the liberal Senator from Illinois -- Dick Durbin -- from falsely comparing our brave men and women in uniform to NAZIs.

However... perhaps you now see why our GOP-lead Senate voted for this ghastly amendment?

Simply put, they did not want to be skewered by members of the anti-American press who would have -- without a doubt -- FALSELY reported opposition to this dastardly amendment as support of torture.

And that -- dear FRiends -- is cowardice, pure and simple!

While our troops risk their lives on the battlefield half-way around the world -- these spineless Senators would not even risk a little bad-mouthing from a biased media!

It's so sick... it's disgusting!

McCain’s amendment is a nasty, politically motivated slur on the integrity of our armed forces, and a gross insult to the American people.

What the Senate did two weeks ago must be undone.

Now I'm finished..

Bob,

I received the same email from TownHall.com. It's legit.

I also agree with you.

From How to Interrogate Terrorists:

...The Geneva conventions embody the idea that even in as brutal an activity as war, civilized nations could obey humanitarian rules: no attacking civilians and no retaliation against enemy soldiers once they fall into your hands. Destruction would be limited as much as possible to professional soldiers on the battlefield. That rule required, unconditionally, that soldiers distinguish themselves from civilians by wearing uniforms and carrying arms openly.
Obedience to Geneva rules rests on another bedrock moral principle: reciprocity. Nations will treat an enemy’s soldiers humanely because they want and expect their adversaries to do the same. Terrorists flout every civilized norm animating the conventions. Their whole purpose is to kill noncombatants, to blend into civilian populations, and to conceal their weapons. They pay no heed whatever to the golden rule; anyone who falls into their hands will most certainly not enjoy commissary privileges and wages, per the Geneva mandates. He—or she—may even lose his head...

Take the time to read the whole article.

This is not a popularity contest. To me, cost-benefit analysis says pussy-footing around with terrorists will do nothing but cause the death of more innocents. So the question is, is it more humane to provide human debris all the protections of the U.S. Constitution when it will more assuredly mean the deaths of innocents? Seems silly when you're in a shooting war and the detainees were lucky to have not caught a bullet in the head on the battlefield.

President Bush has threatened to veto it, but that is what this amendment was designed for..GWB will never go along with Constitutional protections for terrorists, but if he vetoes the spending bill, the Dumbocrats can say he's not fully funding the military..
Folks lets clear something up once and for all,

I DO NOT ENDORSE TORTURE FOR FUN..like Hussein, PolPot, Hitler, Stalin, Castro and countless other dictators..

I also DO NOT SUPPORT giving Constitutional protections to people who have sworn to eliminate us..

I support the right of people, no matter where, no matter who, to be free to determine their own destiny, and to make their own choices..

In short, I support American beliefs and values..and as long as those we are offering to help are willing to accept the responsibilities that accompany those fredoms, I will stand with them..but

I WILL NOT EVER STAND WITH ANYONE WHO IS WILLING TO GIVE TERRORISTS THE BENEFITS OF OUR SYSTEM;
I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE OR WHERE YOU LIVE

I agree that we should not extend ANY of our rights to terrorists. I also believe that they do not fall under the Geneva Convention's protections. I believe that we should use any means necessary to obtain any information that may save just one American, Iraqi, or whatever nationality's life. These barbarians would afford no such courtesy to ANYONE in their captivity, including fellow Muslims as eveidenced by the statements made by Zarqawi et al. I also believe that some degree of responsibility lies within the Muslim community to stand up and denounce these bastards as some are now doing, including al Sistani. These foes understand one thing -- violence and we should be happy to oblige. I also believe that we should start the trials/investigations right now of John Kerry, for outing a REAL covert operative during the John Bolton hearings and whomever decided to leak the information regarding the CIA prisons. These acts can easily be considered borderline offences of the acts of treason and/or sedition. Another reason the terrorists believe that they can win is because a) the Clinton administrations policy led them to believe such and b)because they know how highly most of America values morality and human life. They believe that they can win -- however, they are DEAD wrong. I have vented and yes, I do feel better.

Depends upon which part of the US knows this. It seems that the CIA is having some "trouble" here recently and I really don't know how to digest it all. I firmly believe that Porter Goss is trying like hell to clean house and maybe these idiots have given him a good place to start. Although, you don't hear much about Porter here recently which could be a good or a bad thing. Hope he has help over there as I am sure there are many of those who need to go that are pretty well entrenched. Didn't we also have satellite confirmation of this convoy moving into Syria? I thought that was how they knew that it was a Russian-led contingent. Hopefully, as the Syria investigation plays out, our SF guys will start taking out some "selected" targets within the Syrian borders, if they haven't already. I don't believe that Ass-ad has as much support as he thinks he does. I haven't heard shit out the Arab League about the summit that he has requested. I think they are going to do what they always do, let their brethren hang out to dry on this one.

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.