Posted on 07/11/2007 6:12:47 AM PDT by ParsifalCA
That did not happen -
Yes, there were WMDs in Iraq. And yes, we knew there were. However, at that point it becomes weird.
1) Resolution 1441 permitted the US to invade Iraq to protect the weapons inspection program. Through the convoluted bureaucratic interpretation, this meant that the US could stay in Iraq only until WMDs were found(!)
2) We knew that the Russians were in tight with Saddam and the Syrians, so we made a deal with them to transport all the WMDs out of Iraq to Syria, where they would be buried. This both protected our forces in Iraq, and kept Russia from being embarrassed, because the WMDs were of Russian manufacture. It also prevented a major escalation, had some Iraqi commander decided to use such weapons against US forces; something nobody wanted to have happen.
3) Because of the hot combat, the UN inspectors would not go to Iraq, which meant all the efforts to find WMDs were left in US hands. So we looked and looked, but did not find, because we didn’t want to find. (Several times we did find WMDs, but had to officially declare that they weren’t WMDs, so we could continue to look, but not find.)
4) There is, however, a big paper trail about Saddam’s and other nations WMD programs, but it mostly confirms what we already knew. So those documents will only be slowly translated, and it will be many years before they are trickled out, if ever.
So, in the final analysis, we got what we wanted, the Russians got what they wanted, and the UN and the American left were left in their usual state of cluelessness.
mark for later
L
Missing Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction
Report: U.S suspects Iraqi WMD in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley
B I N G O
Yes. Funny part was that he had an “agreement” with Iran that they woudl return them when the war ended. When he asked for their return, he was told they had been confiscatd to help pay off debts for the Iran-Iraq war.
Exactly, but Saddam does have a track record of moving his assets out of the country prior to the onset of a war even to a former enemy. It is part of his MO.
pinging myself to your wonderful compilation—for use later—THANK YOU
Maybe Saddam’s WMD are in industrial plastic containers and undectable with metal detectors.
Saddam’s MO is to use deciet, deception and deny.
Did that for 12 years.
Don’t you think this is another Urban legend...I mean Desert legend.
And yet somehow the administration looks past all these ‘facts’ and still admits that perhaps the WMD story was a bit off. Shocking.....
They are buried under the concrete of these warehouses in a town that is smaller then the warehouse complex in it, just a few miles northeast of Saddam's binary chemical weapons testing labs.
The smaller yellow warehouses are the size of a football field and there are no trucks in this fenced in compound.
Mark Alexander
From Patriot No. 05-45-1; Published 11 November 2005 | |
(EDITOR'S NOTE: This Patriot Action Alert concerns the TRUTH about Iraq's WMD. All of the quotes cited below can be found through official and media archives. To start, search Google for "Clinton Iraq 1998" and check the sources. Please forward this message to anyone on your e-mail list who is interested in the truth!)
On the heels of the "White House -- CIA leak" investigation, which concluded that no laws were broken (but charged one administration staffer with perjury), liberals are attempting to parlay that non-starter into a much bigger political brawl. Their charges have no substance, and are completely contrived to keep Republicans off balance through next year's midterm elections.
Sens. Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin have accused President George Bush of lying about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, insisting he "lied us into war." They are even floating the suggestion that he be impeached.
Here are their accusations:
"The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought." --Ted Kennedy
"We all know the Vice President's office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it. ... The manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq...the Vice President is behind that." --Harry Reid
"I seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth." -- Dick Durbin, who recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis and Pol Pot.
Naturally, the Democrat's media lemmings are reporting these charges as de facto truth, but there is considerable evidence that these Demo-gogues and their colleagues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington. Here is a small sample of that evidence from the Clinton years:
Here is what Democrats were saying before 9/11:
Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. ... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity. ... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
Bill Clinton on ODF: "Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. ... Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (That was Bill Clinton two years before 9/11 announcing Operation Desert Fox -- if Iraq did not have, or was not developing WMD, then what was Clinton attacking? Oh, that's right, "baby formula" and "aspirin" factories.)
Democrat Leaders under Bill Clinton:
In 1998, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Iraq Liberation Act. That Act stated, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." This legislation passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate without a single vote in opposition.
Albert Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security of the world."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. ... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk 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."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."
Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all. [Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."
Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."
John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
Nancy Pelosi: "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."
Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We 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."
Democrat leaders after 9/11:
After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- you know, the years of appeasement when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to take out Osama bin Ladin were ignored, as was the presence of an al-Qa'ida terrorist cell in the U.S. -- which reared its head on 9/11. In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.
Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Harry Reid: "Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."
John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."
Hillary Clinton: "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, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida 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. ... I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."
Carl Levin: "We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein...is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Jay Rockefeller: "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons. We have always underestimated the progress Saddam has been able to make in the development of WMD."
Joe Biden: "We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability."
Evan Bayh: "I support the President. The lesson we learned since 9/11 is that we can't wait to be attacked again, particularly with WMD."
Al Gore: "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Bob Graham: "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."
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."
In October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force if necessary to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq, "Poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States ...[by] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations." These assessments were echoed by foreign intelligence agencies from countries that included Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia, and by the United Nations Security Council in more than a dozen different Security Council resolutions between 1990 and the year 2000.
For the record: Here's a partial list of what didn't make it out of Iraq before the OIF invasion: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents, chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin, radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers, artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents, etc. Assuming Irag had no WMD because only small caches were recovered after Operation Iraqi Freedom began is perilously flawed logic. There is substantial evidence that Saddam exported most of his WMD capability to Iran and Syria before OIF -- which may, eventually, find its way into a U.S. urban center, should U.S. political, and consequently, military resolve wither.
This week, amid the rancor about who "lied," Senator Joseph Lieberman, had this to say about our mission in Iraq: "I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the Senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution, which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power -- a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face. ... The questions raised about prewar intelligence are not irrelevant, they are not unimportant, but they are nowhere near as important and relevant as how we successfully complete our mission in Iraq and protect the 150,000 men and women in uniform who are fighting for us there."
So, ask Ted, Dick and Harry, what is their real agenda?
One might fairly conclude that they are willing to reduce U.S. national security to political fodder by accusing the President of the United States of "lying." Problem is, the President had no political motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom -- only a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of his office -- to defend our liberty against all threats.
Ted, Dick and Harry, on the other hand, have plenty of political motivation for their most recent antics -- and all of America should look upon these disgraceful Demo-gogues, and anyone who supports this dangerous folly, as traitorous louts.
On 11 November, President Bush noted: "While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, [I]t is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. ... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."
"Deeply irresponsible"? He is much too kind.
Semper Vigilo, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander Publisher, The Patriot
UPDATE: December 2005 –
The Demos surrender, retreat and defeat plan:
"The idea that we're going to win this war ... is just plain wrong." --DNC chairman Howard Dean
"There is no reason that young american soldiers need to be going into Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, uh, uh, uh, women...." --John Kerry
More sanity from Mr. Lieberman: "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."
_________________________________________________________________
(Circulation of this Alert is sponsored by The Federalist Patriot, the most widely read conservative e-journal in America. If you have not already joined the ranks of Patriots receiving this highly acclaimed digest of news, policy and opinion, link to http://PatriotPost.US/subscribe/alert0503.asp for your FREE e-mail subscription. (If you don't have Web access, send a blank e-mail to: and you will be subscribed automatically.)
Thank you!
The MSM barely managed to report that much when it happened, and have never mentioned it since.
What is never mentioned is, Libya's WMD program was nuclear, and run by Iraq's top nuclear scientists, that Iraq and Egypt were helping to finance the WMD program, and that Iraq was also contributing supplies. Libya mostly just provided the facilities for the project.
This is how Saddam was able to claim compliance, at least on the nuclear question.
It was the leftovers from Guyana...
If anyone can speculate (or if they know!) WHY the Republicans (esp GWB) have not said anything about the evidence of WMD?
I’ve seen a couple of ideas tossed about, like they don’t want to embarrass their good friends like Russia, France, Germany (and maybe others) whose names are on some of the WMD. Or the name of our country??
I just cannot wrap my brain around this.
The MSM continues to ignore these facts, so the American public at large believes Saddam didn’t have the weapons, he once did back in the 80s, but decided to stop the production after the UN asked him to. And a majority of Americans now believe that nonsense.
Why has the administration and the GOP not fought back with these facts, it’s anyone’s guess ? Is there something more sinister involved or is it simply the same old Bush administration lack of balls ? The same wimp response they have showed every other challenge in the last 7 years.
Only a moron would think this maniac didn’t move the WMDs, and it looks like the morons are clearly in the majority in this country.
Bump and Bookmark
I have thought this several times in the past; now I believe it is true. But why are our leaders trying to tear down our country, their country?
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.