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

Skip to comments.

Who thought Iraq had WMD? Most everybody
Townhall ^ | May 25, 2006 | Larry Elder

Posted on 05/25/2006 8:40:53 AM PDT by 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?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bushlied; iraq; larryelder; wmd; wmds; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last

1 posted on 05/25/2006 8:40:55 AM PDT by Caleb1411
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411
I STILL think they had 'em.

They're out there somewhere.

2 posted on 05/25/2006 8:41:48 AM PDT by Allegra (Finbar for Texas Governor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411

If you find pieces of WMD and they aren't assembled, does that mean he didn't have WMD?


3 posted on 05/25/2006 8:42:27 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
We didn't find actual Zyclon D in many of the concentration camps in Germany, but we knew they used it through the evidence, such as the bodies, empty canisters, and witnesses. What is the difference between that and the WMDs in Iraq?
4 posted on 05/25/2006 8:44:07 AM PDT by mnehring (Those who advocate, and act to promote, victory by Democrats are not conservatives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411
"Who thought Iraq had WMD? Most everybody"

LOL - well hells bells, even Saddam Hussein thought he had WMDs.

5 posted on 05/25/2006 8:46:21 AM PDT by Enterprise (The MSM - Propaganda wing and news censorship division of the Democrat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411

www.9-11commission.gov
Page 128

The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”109This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.”110This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998.111


6 posted on 05/25/2006 8:46:33 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411

The 1984 concept that telling a lie often enough and loud enough will make people believe it's the truth. The Democrats and the MSM know this and thus outright lie to the public. It works!


7 posted on 05/25/2006 8:46:50 AM PDT by Edgerunner (Proud to be an infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411

I think a lot is buried, and a lot more are now in Syrian hands. Many of their military have admitted moving them across the border.


8 posted on 05/25/2006 8:46:53 AM PDT by theDentist (Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll. 17,400+ snide replies and counting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411

bump


9 posted on 05/25/2006 8:47:18 AM PDT by lesser_satan (EKTHELTHIOR!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411

Even Saddam thought he had WMD's.


10 posted on 05/25/2006 8:47:56 AM PDT by oyez (Appeasement is insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411

OH NO.....according to our liberal senators and reps Iraq is their friend, they walk on water you see.....why Bush just said this to start a war to finish what his father had going....

My goodness people don't you believe the liberals?

(sac/ON)


11 posted on 05/25/2006 8:48:09 AM PDT by HarleyLady27 (My ? to libs: "Do they ever shut up on your planet?" "Grow your own DOPE: Plant a LIB!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allegra
All you have to do is read the translations of the Saddam papers to know they had 'em. There's a whole lot more evidence, including some of the things we found when we entered Iraq at the beginning of the war. Only a dufus could truthfully think there were no WMD. That's trouble--the left is comprised of dufuses and liars.
12 posted on 05/25/2006 8:48:10 AM PDT by MizSterious (Anonymous sources often means "the voices in my head told me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Allegra
I STILL think they had 'em.

I don't know how it's possible to do some of the mass killing that they did under Saddam w/o 'em.

13 posted on 05/25/2006 8:48:21 AM PDT by Fruitbat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411
One of my favorite quotes is from Clinton's Defense Secretary,William Cohen,in April of 2003:

"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."

14 posted on 05/25/2006 8:50:30 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allegra

Better that they be lost forever than found by and used by the bad guys. Politics be damned, there are lives at stake. Perhaps this is what the President meant when he mentioned using political capital.

Stay safe and come home well.


15 posted on 05/25/2006 8:50:48 AM PDT by Jack of all Trades (Liberalism: replacing backbones with wishbones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SouthernBoyupNorth

PING


16 posted on 05/25/2006 8:51:02 AM PDT by SouthernBoyupNorth ("For my wings are made of Tungsten, my flesh of glass and steel..........")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411
He DIDN'T have WMD, and that photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam PROVES we GAVE him the WMD he didn't have! Yeah, and you know HOW he got those WMD--which he DIDN'T have, Hullo?!?? He got those WMD (which he didn't have) because the USA GAVE them to him! But he doesn't have them and only a rightwing wacko believes Saddam had WMD--and WE gave them to him!!! Yeah!

Free Mumia! USA out of North America!

(slips off stool and falls to floor in drunken stupor)

17 posted on 05/25/2006 8:51:49 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (What would Thomas Pynchon do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
I think a lot is buried, and a lot more are now in Syrian hands.

Weren't there satellite photos taken during the weeks leading up to the war showing an enormous number of trucks crossing the Iraq/Syria border?

18 posted on 05/25/2006 8:53:38 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
I think a lot is buried, and a lot more are now in Syrian hands. Many of their military have admitted moving them across the border.

Or Iran.

And we haven't counted Russia out, either. I wouldn't put it past them.

There are some still in Iraq. Why this hasn't come out, I don't know. They're here and people who count know about it.

19 posted on 05/25/2006 8:54:25 AM PDT by Allegra (Finbar for Texas Governor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

Yes.... coincidental, I'm sure.


20 posted on 05/25/2006 8:54:46 AM PDT by theDentist (Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll. 17,400+ snide replies and counting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 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