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

Skip to comments.

Joe Lieberman: Saddam Had WMD Programs
NewsMax ^ | 12/2/05 | NewsMax

Posted on 12/02/2005 10:33:42 AM PST by wagglebee

Following up on his Wall Street Journal article Tuesday defending the Iraq war, Sen. Joseph Lieberman is reminding Bush administration critics that it's wrong to claim that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. attacked in 2003.

"The so-called Duelfer Report, which a lot of people read to say there were no weapons of mass destruction - concluded that Saddam continued to have very low level of chemical and biological programs," Lieberman told ABC Radio host Sean Hannity on Wednesday.

"[Saddam] was trying to break out of the U.N. sanctions by going back into rapid redevelopment of chemical and biological and probably nuclear [weapons]," Lieberman said, calling the Iraqi dictator "a ticking time bomb."

"I have no regrets" that the U.S. toppled Saddam, the former vice presidential candidate explained. "I think we can finish are job there, and as part of it - really transform the Arab-Islamic world."

Lieberman said that his fellow Democrats haven't taken kindly to his decision to buck his party on Iraq.

"There's been some grumbling," he told Hannity. "In Connecticut there's a 'Dump Joe' web site that has cropped up."

But Lieberman added, "I've been here long enough where, at this stage in my career, I'm going to do what I think is right."


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 109th; duelferreport; iraq; lieberman; saddam; wmd; wmds
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 last
To: kellynla
I heard an interview with Minter...he's absolutely passionate about what he knows to be true.

Unfortunately, MSM has got the people expecting "stockpiles" to be in this 5 block square warehouse somewhere....like a Costco.

Semper Fi
61 posted on 12/02/2005 12:24:52 PM PST by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
He's the last of the Scoop Jackson Democrats. Back to a time when you could disagree with Democrats, but you wouldn't have to question their loyalty to this country.

Exactly right. Perfect analogy.

62 posted on 12/02/2005 12:29:18 PM PST by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: JillValentine
"Miller for president"

You are right that many conservatives, like me, would not vote for Lieberman against the average conservative. But I don't mind disagreeing and arguing with someone amicably on a host of issues as long as we both agree that national defense comes before all other issues. Lieberman understands this. The great majority of Dems do not. That is one reason why I left the party, and have great respect for the few Dems who understand the import of the war on terror. For that reason I would vote for Lieberman before I would vote for someone like Pat Buchanan who does not understand what we are up against. National defense trumps everything else.

63 posted on 12/02/2005 12:44:58 PM PST by driftless ( For life-long happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
"why is everyone still denying it"

Because it is very embarrassing for libs to acknowledge reality. You can't even get them to acknowledge what happened to the Kurds. Logically one would assume that considering what he has done and his failure to reveal all his wmd programs that fair observers would conclude that Hussein was a menace and had to be taken out. I will wager that there is not one Dem or lib who protested Clinton's words and actions in '98 concerning Hussein and his wmds.

The fact is the current president is a Republican. Therefore Hussein can not now be or ever have been a threat, and he never had wmds or did anything bad. It's like the situation in "1984" when history was wiped our or revised to fit the present needs of Big Brother and his minions. End of story.

64 posted on 12/02/2005 12:55:16 PM PST by driftless ( For life-long happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: driftless
but I haven't even seen, read or heard any of the so called conservatives or Republicans besides Miniter acknowledge that WMD's were found in Iraq???
65 posted on 12/02/2005 1:02:24 PM PST by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red

"Come over to the good side Joe! Defect!"

Even if he does, he will always be balanced out by the likes of Chuck Hagel, Voinovich and McCain.


66 posted on 12/02/2005 1:55:06 PM PST by Mi-kha-el ((There is no Pravda in Izvestiya and no Izvestiya in Pravda.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

If it had been the case then President Bush would have been singing it from the Whitehouse roof.

The Iraqi's would have to have been caught red handed with stockpiles of battle field ready weapons. Even some of Saddams Special Republican Guard leaders who have been through the US intel process revealed that none were deployed in their brigades or regiments. SCUDs and their TELs would also have had to found to make a water tight case.

Regardless of what has been found it still does not make a case from the Whitehouse perspective that Saddam had an deployed operational WMD capability. The size of the arsenal that Saddam had there is bound to have been stray rounds. Some of the rounds found were revealed by the US to have been from the Persian Gulf era. What needed to be found was battle-field ready munitions and a trail of captured personnel involved in their operations and deployment.


67 posted on 12/02/2005 1:58:13 PM PST by Tommyjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: txroadkill

Yea, but the question is who is being punished in that photo!!!!! Both are pretty bad.


68 posted on 12/02/2005 3:56:05 PM PST by Kath (Luvya Dubya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ducks1944

You mean he and Al Gore would have done everything to steal the election not get elected don't you?


69 posted on 12/02/2005 3:58:28 PM PST by Kath (Luvya Dubya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 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