Who thought Iraq had WMD? Most everybody

Townhall ^ | May 25, 2006 | Larry Elder

[Caleb1411]

As Memorial Day approaches, 51 percent of Americans, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, think the commander in chief "deliberately misled" us about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. "Deliberately misled"? Once again, let's go to the videotape:

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, February 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."

Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, February 1998: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983."

Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, October 2003: "When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: "There is a problem -- the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right . . . in having decided Iraq should be disarmed."

President Bill Clinton, December 1998: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly -- unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians; firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. Not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. . . . "

Clinton, July 2003: " . . . [I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there."

Gen. Wesley Clark, September 2002, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks, as would we."

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean [D], September 2002: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."

Dean, February 2003: "I agree with President Bush -- he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country."

Dean, March 2003: "[Iraq] is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons."

Robert Einhorn, Clinton assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, March 2002: "How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously -- and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner."

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others, in a letter to President Bush, December 2001: "There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. . . . 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."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., December 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."

Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., ranking minority Intelligence Committee member, October 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."

Any questions?

[girlangler]

Oh I believe you Allegra. No doubt there's still much in Iraq. And I have read several articles proving enough was found in Iraq to justify the U.S. invasion.

I also believe the Anthrax used in this country during the 9/11 attacks came from Iraq.

Why, oh why, will the Republican leadership not get this info out to the public?

[Liberty Valance]

Absolutely.

[Liberty Valance]

LOL!

[Grig]

Even Saddam thought he had WMD's.

That just shows how good a liar Bush is.

[dayglored]

> Any questions?

One question.

Assume all the statements about Saddam having WMDs at the time of the invasion are true. I believed he had them along with everybody else. Granted, he may have moved some out to Syria, and he may have buried some. But surely, he kept a bunch handy. Why? He saw war coming.

Weapons are to wage war. Offensive and/or defensive war. There's no other purpose for WMDs.

So how come, pushed to the wall, faced with overwhelming probability of his removal from power, if not his death and that of his family, did he not use them against our troops? That's question that troubles me to this day. I can't answer it, and the attempts I've heard so far (we invaded too quickly, he only used a few and we didn't notice, he moved them all out so that he could return to power later, etc.) don't stand out as good enough; the only reason he had them was to use them to stay in power and make trouble.

To me, all other arguments about whether the WMDs existed, how many, where, etc. are subordinate to this: How come Saddam didn't use his WMDs against the invasion, in an all-out effort to save his regime?

[DocRock]

BTTT

[Bommer]

Yep! Just a figment of your imagination!

[Yaelle]

Saddam's Christian general, what was his name? Sadr? He said that he saw the hollowed out passenger planes used to transport the weapons to Syria.

Saddam had WMD and was working on getting his nuke program running again. It's the truth. There is more evidence that he had them (attacks, witnesses) than that he didn't.

[mtntop3]

An airliner brimming with aviation fuel is a WMD in every sense - as we know all too well after the fact.

Our imaginations oftentimes have a tendency to lag and underestimate those of creative mass murderers.

[DocRock]

From the article you linked in post #37...

"The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad, which International Atomic Energy Agency spokesman Mark Gwozdecky acknowledged to Insight had been intended for "a clandestine nuclear-weapons program.""

The IAEA also refused to let the U.S. remove this 500 ton stockpile of Uranium last May. LINK

From my link...

"Some 1.8 tons is classified as low-enriched uranium, a more potent form but still not sufficient for a weapon.

Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the low-enriched version could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions.

"A country like Iran," Cochran said, "could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium."

[DocRock]

"One question."

Saddam had WMD's to use on Iran (which is documented) and his unarmed Kurds, (which is also documented). It was understood that if he used any unconventional weapons on U.S. forces, we would nuke him. Good question and I hope I've helped answer it for you.

[PISANO]

Only in a post-Clinton world where Bullsh.t rules could the MSM convince 51% of the nation that BUSH LIED.

WMD did EXIST and he [Saddam] did NOT provide the PROOF MANDATED that they were destroyed......... hence they existed.

Rational thinking and reponsible persons could not believe otherwise.

[MistrX]

I think most of them ended up in Iran and Syria.

[april15Bendovr]

http://cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap3.html

http://cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html

[Allegra]

I think most of them ended up in Iran and Syria.

Some of them are still in Iraq.

[april15Bendovr]

"BUTCHER of BASRA" Admits to Iraq's Weapons Program in EXCLUSIVE VIDEO INTERVIEW

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=286